```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17339-17382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04305]

[[Page 17339]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 59

March 27, 2014

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 
Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; 
and Polyether Polyols Production; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 17340]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435; FRL-9906-34-OA]
RIN 2060-AR02

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production; and Polyether Polyols Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
conducted for nine source categories regulated under the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV 
Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; and 
Polyether Polyols Production. Today's action promulgates amendments 
concerning the following: Residual risk reviews; technology reviews; 
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction; 
standards for previously unregulated hazardous air pollutant emission 
sources; revisions to require monitoring of pressure relief devices 
that release to the atmosphere; and electronic reporting of performance 
test results. This action also lifts the stay of requirements for 
process contact cooling towers at existing sources in one Group IV 
Polymers and Resins subcategory, issued on February 23, 2001. The 
revisions to the final rules maintain the level of environmental 
protection or emissions control on sources regulated by these rules.

DATES: This final action is effective on March 27, 2014. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final 
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 
27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index.
    Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, William 
Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about these final rule 
amendments, contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5372; fax number: 
(919) 541-0246; email address: parsons.nick@epa.gov. For specific 
information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie 
Smith, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C159-02), OAQPS, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2076; fax number: (919) 541-0840; 
email address: smith.darcie@epa.gov. For information about the 
applicability of these three NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. 
Tavara Culpepper, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 
(OECA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20004; 
telephone number: (202) 564-0902; email address: 
culpepper.tavara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several acronyms and terms used to 
describe industrial processes, data inventories and risk modeling are 
included in this final action. While this may not be an exhaustive 
list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, 
the following terms and acronyms are defined here:

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
AWP alternative work practice
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HI hazard index
HON National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 
From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
LDAR leak detection and repair
MABS Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in 
a source category
MBS Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene Styrene
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OGI optical gas imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
P&R IV Group IV Polymers and Resins
PAI Pesticide Active Ingredient
PCCT process contact cooling tower
PEPO Polyether Polyols
PET Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate)
ppm parts per million
PRD pressure relief device
PS Polystyrene
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAN Styrene Acrylonitrile
SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
TPA Terephthalic Acid
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendments
    A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group IV Polymers 
and Resins MACT standards?
    B. What are the final rule amendments for the Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production MACT standards?
    C. What are the final rule amendments for the Polyether Polyols 
Production MACT standards?
    D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Compliance-Related Issues Common to the NESHAP
    A. How do the rules address startup, shutdown and malfunction?

[[Page 17341]]

    B. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these 
source categories since proposal?
    B. What changes did we make to the affirmative defense 
provisions since proposal?
    C. What changes did we make to the PRD provisions since 
proposal?
    D. What changes did we make to the Group IV Polymers and Resins 
MACT standards since proposal?
    E. What changes did we make to the Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production MACT standards since proposal?
    F. What changes did we make to the Polyether Polyols Production 
MACT standards since proposal?
    G. What other changes did we make since proposal?
VI. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the 
Proposed Rule
    A. Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements
    B. Startup and Shutdown Periods
    C. P&R IV Equipment Leak and PCCT Provisions for Previously-
Unregulated Sources
    D. Technology Review
VII. Impacts of the Final Rules
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

    A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
final changes in this action is available in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1268), the EPA proposed amendments to 
three national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP): Group IV Polymers and Resins (P&R IV); Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production (PAI); and Polyether Polyols Production (PEPO). 
This action presents the results and final decisions based on the EPA's 
review of these three NESHAP. Specifically, pursuant to the Clean Air 
Act (CAA), the EPA has completed residual risk and technology reviews 
(RTRs) for nine source categories covered by three separate 
regulations. Significant public comments and our responses are 
summarized in this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the 
proposal not presented in the preamble, and the EPA's responses to 
those comments, is available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0435).
    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review these 
regulations (i.e., NESHAP) and revise them as necessary (taking into 
account developments in practices, processes and control technologies) 
no less frequently than every 8 years. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA 
requires the EPA to assess the remaining risks due to emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from these source categories and 
determine whether the emission standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health within 8 years of promulgation of the 
original standards.
    The amendments also address the following: Emissions during periods 
of startup, shutdown and malfunction; standards for previously 
unregulated HAP emission sources; revisions to require monitoring of 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service that release to the 
atmosphere; and electronic reporting of performance test results. This 
action also lifts the stay of requirements for process contact cooling 
towers at existing sources in one P&R IV subcategory issued on February 
23, 2001 (66 FR 11233).
2. Summary of Major Provisions
    The EPA has determined that no rule amendments are needed for these 
three NEHSAP based on the RTRs under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 
112(f)(2). However, the EPA is making revisions to all three NESHAP in 
three areas. First, the EPA is eliminating the exemption for periods of 
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), so that the emission standards 
in each rule apply at all times. Second, the EPA is requiring 
electronic reporting of performance test results. Finally, the EPA is 
requiring monitoring of pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP 
service that release to the atmosphere.
    With regard to the NESHAP for P&R IV, the EPA is making revisions 
in three additional areas. First, the EPA is addressing certain 
emissions that were not previously regulated. Second, the EPA is 
providing alternative compliance demonstration methods during periods 
of startup and shutdown. Third, the EPA is lifting the stay of 
requirements for process contact cooling towers at existing sources in 
one P&R IV subcategory.
3. Costs and Emission Reductions
    Table 1 below summarizes the costs and emission reductions for this 
action. See section VII of this preamble for further discussion of the 
costs and impacts.

   Table 1--Summary of the Costs and Emission Reductions for the Final Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide
                 Active Ingredient Production and Polyether Polyols Production NESHAP Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                                       Emission
                     NESHAP                          affected      Capital costs    Annualized      reductions
                                                      plants            ($)        costs  ($/yr)       (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP: Group IV Polymers and Resins............              31      $3,800,000        $566,000             N/A
NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient                        18       1,500,000         222,000             N/A
 Production.....................................
NESHAP for Polyether Polyols....................              23       1,600,000         242,000             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17342]]

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Table 2 lists categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action. Table 2 is not intended to be 
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 
likely to be affected by this final action for the source categories 
listed. To determine whether your facility would be affected, you 
should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If 
you have any questions regarding the applicability of any of these 
NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

 Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   NESHAP and source
                                       category          NAICS Code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group IV Polymers and Resins..  Acrylic-Butadiene-                325211
                                 Styrene Production.
                                Methyl Methacrylate-              325211
                                 Acrylonitrile-
                                 Butadiene-Styrene
                                 Production \2\.
                                Methyl Methacrylate-              325211
                                 Butadiene-Styrene
                                 Production.
                                Nitrile Resins                    325211
                                 Production \2\.
                                Polyethylene                      325211
                                 Terephthalate
                                 Production.
                                Polystyrene Production            325211
                                Styrene-Acrylonitrile             325211
                                 Production.
-------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production                    325199, 325320
-------------------------------
Polyether Polyols Production                                      325199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ There are no longer any operating facilities in either the Methyl
  Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production or Nitrile
  Resins Production source categories, and none are anticipated to begin
  operation in the future. Therefore, this final rule does not address
  these source categories.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will be available on the Internet through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 
of this final action on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA 
will post the Federal Register version of the final action and key 
technical documents on the project Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pr4/pr4pg.html, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/polyol/polyolpg.html and 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pest/pestpg.html. Information on the overall 
RTR program is available at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 27, 
2014. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson 
Clinton Federal Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel 
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail 
Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one 
or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), section 112(d) calls 
for us to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major 
sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any 
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or 
more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions 
of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-
air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred 
to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor requirements 
and may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). 
For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the 
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled 
similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less 
stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must 
also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor,

[[Page 17343]]

under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the 
emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts and energy requirements. In promulgating MACT standards, CAA 
section 112(d)(2) directs us to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems or techniques that reduce the volume of or 
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 
materials or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to 
eliminate emissions; collect, capture or treat HAP when released from a 
process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point; and/or are design, 
equipment, work practice or operational standards.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake two 
different analyses, as required by the CAA: Section 112(d)(6) of the 
CAA calls for us to review these technology-based standards and to 
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years; and within 8 years after promulgation of the 
technology-based standards, CAA section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate 
the risk to public health remaining after application of the 
technology-based standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, 
to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to 
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety and other 
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, the EPA 
may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA 
determines that the existing standards are sufficiently protective. 
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    On January 9, 2012, the EPA published a proposed rule for the PAI, 
PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards that took into consideration the RTR 
analyses (77 FR 1268). For these MACT standards, today's action 
provides the EPA's final determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions 
of CAA section 112. In addition, we are promulgating amendments for 
each of these NESHAP as follows:

Group IV Polymers and Resins

     Revisions to address certain emission sources not 
previously regulated under the standards.
     Revisions to clarify requirements for Precompliance 
Reports.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test 
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to allow for alternative compliance 
determination methods during periods of startup and shutdown.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs.

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production

     Revisions to the definition of ``pesticide active 
ingredient.''
     Revisions to clarify requirements for Precompliance Plans.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test 
electronic reporting.
     Clarifications to the provisions for packed-bed scrubbers.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs.

Polyether Polyols Production

     Revisions to clarify requirements for Precompliance 
Reports.
     Revisions to requirements related to emissions during 
periods of SSM.
     Revisions to requirements related to performance test 
electronic reporting.
     Revisions to the requirements related to PRDs.
    Section III of this preamble presents a summary of the final rule 
amendments for the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards.

III. Summary of the Final Rule Amendments

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Group IV Polymers and 
Resins MACT standards?

    The P&R IV MACT standards apply to major sources and regulate HAP 
emissions from seven thermoplastics production source categories: 
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), styrene acrylonitrile (SAN), 
methyl methacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (MABS), methyl 
methacrylate butadiene styrene resin (MBS), polystyrene (PS), poly 
(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and nitrile resin.\1\ Sources of HAP 
emissions from thermoplastics production include breathing and 
withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, venting of process 
vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP compounds 
(equipment leaks) and volatilization of HAP from wastewater streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are no longer any operating facilities in either the 
MABS Production or Nitrile Resins Production source categories, and 
none are anticipated to begin operation in the future. Therefore, 
this final rule does not address these source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only five of the seven P&R IV source categories have facility 
operations in the U.S.: ABS, SAN, MBS, PET and PS Production. For these 
five source categories, we have determined that the current MACT 
standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental 
effects. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\2\ We have also determined that there 
are no viable developments in HAP emission reduction practices, 
processes or control technologies to apply to the emission sources in 
these source categories, considering the technical feasibility, 
estimated costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts and 
emission reductions of the options identified. Therefore, it is not 
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of 
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing 
technology-based standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then 
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual 
risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control 
for previously unregulated HAP emissions from equipment leaks and 
process contact cooling towers (PCCT) in the PET continuous 
terephthalic acid (TPA) high viscosity multiple end finisher 
subcategory, which has one facility currently in operation. For 
equipment leaks, the standards being finalized are work practices that 
include performing a 2- to 3-hour leak check upon startup following an 
outage where changes have been made to the facility's esterification 
equipment. This leak check is conducted by introducing hot ethylene 
glycol vapors into the system. Any leaks identified must be repaired by 
tightening flange bolts before introducing new materials into the 
process. For PCCT, the standard being finalized is a concentration 
limit of ethylene glycol in the PCCT at or below 6.0 percent by weight, 
averaged on a daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating 
days.
    We are finalizing changes to the P&R IV MACT standards to eliminate 
the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in 
this rule apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 to subpart 
JJJ (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects. 
For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General 
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have 
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA has also 
made

[[Page 17344]]

changes to the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary or 
redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. Additionally, 
we are adding provisions to provide an affirmative defense to civil 
penalties for violations of emission standards caused by malfunctions, 
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and is establishing alternative 
compliance demonstration methods for those affected sources subject to 
emission limits expressed as mass emissions per mass product produced 
for continuous process vents. The final rule amendments (40 CFR 
63.1315(a)(19) and (b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(A), 
(b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), and (c)(1)(i), and 40 CFR 63.1318(b)(1) 
and (c)) allow facilities to demonstrate compliance with the rule by 
either: (1) Keeping records that establish the raw material feed rate 
and production rate were both zero; (2) meeting the limit by dividing 
the emission rate during startup or shutdown by the rate of polymer 
produced from the most recent performance test associated with a 
production rate greater than zero; or (3) keeping records that 
establish the operating parameters of the control device used to comply 
with the rule were maintained at the level established to meet the 
emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions. See 
section VI.B of this preamble for greater detail regarding the 
commenters' concerns regarding meeting standards for continuous process 
vents during startup and shutdown periods and our response to those 
concerns.
    We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1331(a)(9) to require 
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the 
atmosphere and clarify that pressure releases from such PRDs are 
prohibited. We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 
63.1335(e)(6)(xiii) to require reporting of any PRD releases to the 
atmosphere with the next periodic report.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test 
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to 
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners or operators of P&R IV 
facilities are required to submit electronic copies of applicable 
reports of performance tests to the EPA's WebFIRE database through an 
electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit performance test data 
electronically to the EPA does not require any additional performance 
testing, and applies only to those performance tests conducted using 
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    We have also clarified in 40 CFR 63.1335(e)(3)(i) the requirements 
for Precompliance Reports where an initial Precompliance Report is 
needed after the compliance date for the rule.

B. What are the final rule amendments for the Pesticide Active 
Ingredient Production MACT standards?

    The PAI manufacturing process consists of the production of active 
ingredients in insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and related 
products, which are typically then formulated with inert ingredients to 
create end-product pesticides for application. The PAI MACT standards 
apply only to the active ingredient production. Emissions occur from 
breathing and withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, venting of 
process vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP 
compounds (equipment leaks), volatilization of HAP from wastewater 
streams, evaporation from dryers and dust from bag dumps.
    For the PAI source category, we have determined that the current 
MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse 
environmental effects. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the 
MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\3\ We have also 
determined that there are no viable developments in HAP emission 
reduction practices, processes or control technologies to apply to the 
emission sources in this source category, considering the technical 
feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, non-air 
environmental impacts and emission reductions of the options 
identified. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing changes to the PAI MACT standards to eliminate 
the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in 
this rule apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 of subpart 
MMM (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects. 
For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General 
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have 
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We have 
determined that facilities in this source category can meet the 
applicable emission standards at all times, including periods of 
startup and shutdown, in compliance with the current MACT standards, 
and no additional standards are needed to address emissions during 
these periods. The EPA has also made changes to the rule to remove or 
modify inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the absence 
of the SSM exemption. Additionally, we are adding provisions to provide 
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission 
standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing 
the affirmative defense.
    We have added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1363(b)(4) to require 
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the 
atmosphere and clarify that pressure releases from such PRDs are 
prohibited. We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1363(h)(3)(v) 
to require reporting of any PRD releases to the atmosphere with the 
next periodic report.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test 
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to 
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners or operators of PAI 
facilities are required to submit electronic copies of applicable 
reports of performance tests to the EPA's WebFIRE database through an 
electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. This 
requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
does not require any additional performance testing, and applies only 
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are 
supported by the ERT.
    We have also clarified in 40 CFR 63.1368(e) that sources may submit 
a Precompliance Plan to request alternative compliance options after 
the compliance date has passed or construction or preconstruction 
applications have already been submitted.
    In addition, we have added clarifications to the provisions for 
packed-bed scrubbers in 40 CFR 63.1366(b)(1)(ii). We have also revised 
the definition for ``pesticide active ingredient.''

C. What are the final rule amendments for the Polyether Polyols 
Production MACT standards?

    The PEPO manufacturing process involves the reaction of ethylene 
oxide, propylene oxide or other cyclic ethers with compounds having one 
or more reactive hydrogens to form chemical products with repeating 
ether linkages (i.e., -R-O-R-). These polyether polyols do not have 
significant uses of their own but are used to make a variety of other

[[Page 17345]]

products, such as polyurethane foams, microcellular products, surface 
coatings, elastomers, fibers, adhesives, sealants, surfactants, 
lubricants, degreasing agents, hydraulic fluids, cosmetics and 
pharmaceuticals. The HAP emission sources at PEPO facilities include 
process vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks and wastewater; and at 
some facilities, cooling towers or other heat exchangers.
    For these PEPO facilities, we have determined that the current MACT 
standards reduce risk to an acceptable level, provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental 
effects. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards 
pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\4\ We have also determined that there 
are no viable developments in HAP emission reduction practices, 
processes or control technologies to apply to the emission sources in 
this source category, considering the technical feasibility, estimated 
costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts and emission 
reductions of the options identified. Therefore, it is not necessary to 
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing changes to the PEPO MACT standards to eliminate 
the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in 
this rule apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 of subpart 
PPP (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects. 
For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General 
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have 
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We have 
determined that facilities in this source category can meet the 
applicable emission standards at all times, including periods of 
startup and shutdown, in compliance with the current MACT standards, 
and no additional standards are needed to address emissions during 
these periods. The EPA has also made changes to the rule to remove or 
modify inappropriate, unnecessary or redundant language in the absence 
of the SSM exemption. Additionally, we are adding provisions to provide 
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission 
standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing 
the affirmative defense.
    We have added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1434(c) to require 
monitoring of PRDs in organic HAP service that release to the 
atmosphere, and clarify that pressure releases from such PRDs are 
prohibited. We have also added requirements in 40 CFR 63.1439(e)(6)(ix) 
for facilities to report when any PRD in organic HAP service releases 
to the atmosphere with the next periodic report.
    We are also requiring the electronic submittal of performance test 
data to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and to 
improve data accessibility. Specifically, owners or operators of PEPO 
facilities are required to submit electronic copies of applicable 
reports of performance tests to the EPA's WebFIRE database through an 
electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT. This 
requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
does not require any additional performance testing, and applies only 
to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are 
supported by the ERT.
    We have also clarified in 40 CFR 63.1439(e)(4)(i) the requirements 
for Precompliance Reports where an initial Precompliance Report is 
needed after the compliance date for the rule.

D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    Under CAA section 112(d), for new and existing sources subject to 
the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards, the compliance date for the 
revised SSM requirements (other than PRD monitoring for existing 
sources and new sources that commenced construction or reconstruction 
on or before January 12, 2012) and electronic reporting requirements is 
the effective date of the promulgated standards, March 27, 2014. We are 
finalizing these compliance dates because these requirements should be 
immediately implementable by the facilities upon the next occurrence of 
a malfunction or a performance test that is required to be submitted to 
the ERT. Available information suggests that the facilities should 
already be able to comply with the existing standards during periods of 
startup and shutdown.
    Under CAA section 112(i)(3), for new sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction on or before January 12, 2012, and 
existing sources subject to the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards, 
the compliance date for PRD monitoring is 3 years from the effective 
date of the promulgated standards, March 27, 2017. This time is needed 
regardless of whether an owner or operator of a facility chooses to 
comply with the PRD monitoring provisions by installing PRD release 
indicator systems and alarms, employing parameter monitoring, or by 
routing releases to a control device. This time period will allow 
facilities to research equipment and vendors, purchase, install, test 
and properly operate any necessary equipment by the compliance date.
    For the existing facility in the PET continuous TPA high viscosity 
multiple end finisher subcategory subject to the P&R IV MACT standards, 
the compliance date for the new MACT standards applicable to equipment 
leaks and PCCTs is the effective date of the promulgated standards, 
March 27, 2014. We are finalizing this compliance date because the 
existing facility in this subcategory is already complying with the 
promulgated standards.

IV. Compliance-Related Issues Common to the NESHAP

A. How do the rules address startup, shutdown and malfunction?

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations 
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the 
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 
CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emission 
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 
standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in these rules. Consistent 
with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards in all three NESHAP apply at all 
times. We have also revised the General Provisions applicability tables 
in all three NESHAP, as applicable, in several respects, as is 
explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the 
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that sources 
develop an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain NESHAP 
recordkeeping and reporting that is related to the eliminated SSM 
exemption, as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized 
again here.
    In establishing the standards in these final rule amendments, the 
EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the 
reasons explained below, has not established alternate standards for 
these periods for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards.
    For the P&R IV MACT standards, we received comments from industry 
that

[[Page 17346]]

opine that it may not be possible to comply with emission limits at all 
times in the absence of an exemption for SSM periods. Specifically, the 
commenters asserted that emission limits expressed as a unit of mass 
emitted per unit of mass of product created for process vents or 
destruction efficiency standards could be exceeded during times of 
startup and shutdown. The commenters asserted this is due to the small 
amount of product being produced and/or lower rate of HAP emissions and 
higher rate of supplemental fuel sent to control devices during startup 
and shutdown periods. The commenters suggested that the EPA establish 
alternative startup and shutdown work practice standards, where meeting 
operating parameters could be used to comply with the rule in lieu of 
the production rate and destruction efficiency standards during startup 
and shutdown periods. Per the commenters, these operating parameters 
would be representative of the required level of control at continuous 
steady-state conditions, or routing to a control device that has been 
demonstrated to meet the necessary destruction efficiency standards at 
maximum operating conditions.
    The EPA evaluated the commenters' concerns and disagrees that 
separate standards to address startup and shutdown periods are 
warranted. We agree that demonstrating compliance with a mass of 
emissions per mass of product produced limit may be problematic as 
production approaches zero, however. Therefore, we are establishing 
alternative compliance demonstration methods for those affected sources 
subject to emission limits expressed as mass emissions per mass product 
produced for continuous process vents. The final rule amendments (40 
CFR 63.1315(a)(19) and (b)(2), 40 CFR 63.1316(b)(1)(i)(A), 
(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), and (c)(1)(i), and 40 CFR 
63.1318(b)(1) and (c)) allow facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
the rule by either: (1) Keeping records that establish the raw material 
feed rate and production rate were both zero; (2) meeting the limit by 
dividing the emission rate during startup or shutdown by the rate of 
polymer produced from the most recent performance test associated with 
a production rate greater than zero; or (3) keeping records that 
establish the operating parameters of the control device used to comply 
with the rule were maintained at the level established to meet the 
emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions. See 
section VI.B of this preamble for greater detail regarding the 
commenters' concerns regarding standards for continuous process vents 
during startup and shutdown periods and our response to those concerns.
    Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner . . .'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA 
section 112 does not require that emissions occurring during periods of 
malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. 
Under CAA section 112, emission standards for new sources must be no 
less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled 
similar source and, for existing sources, generally must be no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the 
best-performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing 
in CAA section 112 that directs the EPA to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best 
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the 
EPA accounts for variability in setting emission standards consistent 
with CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the 
EPA to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. CAA section 112 
uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in 
defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 performance 
standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best controlled'' or 
``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning presents 
significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and unexpected 
events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the source categories amended with this 
action, and the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting 
for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that 
might occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning 
is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 
F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``[T]he EPA typically has wide 
latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve 
a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the 
basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the 
resources to conduct the perfect study.'''). See also, Weyerhaeuser Co. 
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of 
things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset 
provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, 
the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts 
of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for 
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal 
of a best-controlled or best-performing source is to operate in such a 
way as to avoid malfunctions. Accounting for malfunctions could lead to 
standards that are significantly less stringent than levels achieved by 
a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's approach to 
malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable 
interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, a result of a ``sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' event and was not instead 
``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 
63.2 (definition of malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause a violation of the relevant emission standard. See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 
Findings of Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and 
Malfunction; Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013); State 
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During 
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy on 
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (February 15, 1983). The EPA is therefore adding to the 
final rules an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 
emission standards that are caused by malfunctions. (See 40 CFR 
63.1312,

[[Page 17347]]

63.1361 and 63.1423 defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the 
context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 
by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, 
and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in 
a judicial or administrative proceeding). We also have added other 
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to 
establish this affirmative defense; a source subject to the PAI, PEPO 
or P&R IV MACT standards must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1310(k), 
63.1360(k) and 63.1420(i). (See 40 CFR 22.24). The added criteria are 
designed in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available 
only where the event that causes a violation of the emission standard 
meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor 
maintenance and/or careless operation). For example, the final rule 
amendments provide that, to successfully assert the proposed 
affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that the violation was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and process equipment, or 
a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. The added criteria 
also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the 
malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 
63.1310(j)(4), 63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4); and to prevent future 
malfunctions. For example, under the added criteria, the source must 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that repairs were made as 
expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred and that all 
possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on 
ambient air quality, the environment and human health. In any judicial 
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the 
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met 
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with 
section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
    The EPA included in the final rule amendments for the PAI, PEPO and 
P&R IV source categories an affirmative defense in an attempt to 
balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulations, to ensure 
adequate compliance, while simultaneously recognizing that, despite the 
most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 
circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 
emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of 
emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' CAA section 
302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation'' and 
``emission standard''). See generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that 
emission standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for 
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that, even where 
there is a malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable 
through injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative 
defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the CAA. 
Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th 
Cir. March 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative 
defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While 
``continuous'' standards are required, there is also case law 
indicating, in many situations, it is appropriate for the EPA to 
account for the practical realities of technology. For example, in 
Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 
DC Circuit acknowledged that, in setting standards under CAA section 
111, ``variant provisions'' such as provisions allowing for upsets 
during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction ``appear necessary 
to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the 
record does not support the `never to be exceeded' standard currently 
in force.'' See, also, Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 
375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though these earlier cases may no longer 
represent binding precedent in light of the CAA 1977 amendments and 
intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA, they nevertheless 
support the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of 
flexibility is reasonable and appropriate. The affirmative defense 
simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for violations that 
are proven to be beyond the control of the source. Through the 
incorporation of an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its 
approach to malfunctions. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth 
Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating 
``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. 
EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). See, also, Mont. Sulphur & 
Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry 
argument that reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate). 
But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 
1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The final 
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both 
ensure that its emission standards are ``continuous,'' as required by 
CAA section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets 
and, thus, support the reasonableness of the standard as a whole. The 
EPA is promulgating the affirmative defense applicable to malfunctions 
under the delegation of general regulatory authority set out in section 
301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), in order to balance this 
tension between provisions of the CAA and the practical reality, as 
case law recognizes, that technology sometimes fails. See generally, 
Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (using section 301(a) 
authority to harmonize inconsistent guidelines related to the 
implementation of federal preconstruction review requirements).
    Refer to the explanations below and sections V and VI of this 
preamble and the Response to Comments document, available in the docket 
for this action, for further discussion regarding SSM-related changes 
made to the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards.
1. General Duty
    For the PAI MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MMM) entry for 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a ``no.'' 
Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. 
Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary or 
appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. 
Similarly, for the P&R IV and PEPO MACT standards, we are also removing 
this requirement at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4) and 40 CFR 63.1420(h)(4), 
respectively. For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are 
instead adding general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4), 
63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4), respectively, that reflects the 
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to 
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during 
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption,

[[Page 17348]]

there is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup 
and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty. 
Therefore the language the EPA is promulgating does not include that 
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are also revising 
the General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, 
Table 1 to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column 
to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not 
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant 
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.1310(j)(4), 
63.1360(e)(4) and 63.1420(h)(4).
2. SSM Plan
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the 
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a 
``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan 
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is removing the SSM exemptions. Therefore, 
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such 
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure 
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance 
and thus the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
3. Compliance With Standards
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the 
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a 
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from 
non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the 
court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision 
and held that the CAA requires that some section 112 standard apply 
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is revising 
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
4. Performance Testing
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the 
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40 
CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a 
``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. 
The EPA is instead adding a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.1333(a), 63.1365(b) and 63.1437(a). The performance testing 
requirements we are adding differ from the General Provisions 
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text 
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the 
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods 
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance 
testing. The revised performance testing provisions do not allow 
performance testing during periods of startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not 
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions 
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is 
adding language that requires the owner or operator to record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. 40 CFR 63.7(e) 
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator 
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the 
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request, but 
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The 
regulatory text the EPA is adding to this provision builds on that 
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
5. Monitoring
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the 
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entries for 
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second 
column to a ``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM 
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of 
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution 
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements 
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    For the PAI MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MMM) entry for 40 CFR 
63.8(d)(3) by changing the explanation in the third column. The final 
sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM 
plan requirement, which is no longer applicable. The EPA is adding the 
explanation that the program of corrective action should be included in 
the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).
6. Recordkeeping
    For the PAI MACT standards, we are revising the General Provisions 
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MMM) entry for 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a ``no.'' 
The EPA is promulgating that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When 
applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the 
affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping 
requirements of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, specified 
in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is eliminating this requirement 
because SSM plans will no longer be required, and therefore 40 CFR 
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
7. Reporting
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the 
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40 
CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a 
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for 
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General 
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is adding reporting 
requirements to 40 CFR 63.1335(b)(1)(ii), 63.1368(i) and 
63.1439(b)(1)(ii). The replacement language differs from the General 
Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 
stand-alone report. We are promulgating language that requires sources 
that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the 
information concerning such events in the semi-annual periodic report 
already required under these rules. We are promulgating that the report 
must contain the number, date, time, duration and cause of such events 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source 
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant

[[Page 17349]]

emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is promulgating 
this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to 
determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the 
failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may 
document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions 
during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether 
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans will no longer be required. The final amendments 
therefore eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that 
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format 
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no 
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise 
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We note that reporting a failure to meet an applicable standard 
could include malfunction events for which a source may choose to 
submit documentation to support an assertion of affirmative defense. If 
a source provides all the material required in 40 CFR 63.1310(k), 
63.1360(k) or 63.1420(i) to support an affirmative defense, the source 
need not submit the same information two times in the same report. 
While assertion of an affirmative defense is not mandatory and would 
occur only if a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative 
defense, the finalized affirmative defense also requires additional 
reporting that goes beyond these routine requirements related to a 
failure to meet an applicable standard for a reason other than a 
malfunction.
    For the P&R IV, PAI and PEPO MACT standards, we are revising the 
General Provisions applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart JJJ, Table 1 
to Subpart MMM, and Table 1 to Subpart PPP, respectively) entry for 40 
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in the second column to a 
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for 
startups, shutdown and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an 
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 
require owners or operators to report when actions taken during a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, 
because plans will no longer be required.
8. Pressure Relief Devices
    The original MACT standards recognized pressure releases from PRDs 
to be the result of malfunctions. PRDs are designed to remain closed 
during normal operation and only release as the result of unplanned 
and/or unpredictable events. A release from a PRD usually occurs during 
an over pressurization of the system. However, emissions vented 
directly to the atmosphere by PRDs in organic HAP service contain HAP 
that are otherwise regulated under the MACT standards that apply to 
these source categories.
    The original MACT standards for these source categories regulated 
PRDs through equipment leak provisions that applied only during non-
release operations. In addition, the rules followed the EPA's then-
practice of exempting SSM events from otherwise applicable emissions 
standards. Consequently, with ``pressure releases'' being defined as 
HAP emitting events that occur during malfunctions, the original MACT 
standards did not restrict pressure releases from PRDs emitted directly 
to the atmosphere but instead treated them the same as all malfunctions 
through the SSM exemption provision.
    In Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court 
determined that the SSM exemption violated the CAA. See section IV.A of 
this preamble for additional discussion. To ensure these standards are 
consistent with that decision, the final rule revisions remove the 
malfunction exemptions in the prior MACT standards. In addition, in 
order for our treatment of malfunction-caused pressure releases 
directly to the atmosphere to conform with the reasoning of the Court's 
ruling, the final rule adds a provision stating that HAP emissions 
releases directly to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service 
are prohibited.
    In the proposal, we proposed to eliminate the SSM exemption from 
the standards. In addition, we stated that under the proposed revised 
rule releases to the atmosphere from PRDs would constitute violations 
of the revised rule. However, although we proposed revised regulatory 
text to eliminate the SSM exemptions from the rules, we omitted a 
proposed regulatory provision that would have given effect to the 
proposed intended prohibition of such PRD releases. In order to give 
effect to the proposed prohibition, which we are finalizing in this 
action, we are adding express regulatory language in the final rule 
revisions that clarifies our intent that pressure releases from PRDs in 
organic HAP service to the atmosphere are prohibited. This is a 
necessary additional revision to give full effect to our elimination of 
the general exemption for malfunctions, in light of the Court's 
reasoning in Sierra Club, and is similar to revisions that we have made 
in other rules in which the SSM exemption has been eliminated (see, 
e.g., NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (77 FR 
22848, April 17, 2012)). As with any malfunction event under the 
revised rules, an owner or operator may assert an affirmative defense 
against civil penalties for a malfunction causing a prohibited pressure 
release from a PRD in organic HAP service to the atmosphere.
    To address potential releases from PRDs, we are further requiring 
facility owners or operators subject to these three MACT standards to 
employ monitoring capable of: (1) Identifying the pressure release; (2) 
recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and (3) 
notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is occurring. 
Owners or operators are required to keep records and report any 
pressure release and the amount of organic HAP released to the 
atmosphere with the next periodic report.
    Pressure release events from PRDs in organic HAP service to the 
atmosphere have the potential to emit large quantities of HAP. Where a 
release occurs, it is important to identify and mitigate it as quickly 
as possible. We recognize that industry has stated that they believe 
releases from PRDs sometimes occur in order to protect systems from 
failures that could endanger worker safety and the systems that the 
PRDs are designed to protect. We have provided a balanced approach 
designed to minimize emissions while recognizing that these events may 
be unavoidable even in a well-designed and maintained system. 
Therefore, we are requiring that sources monitor PRDs in organic HAP 
service using a device or monitoring system that is capable of 
identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure 
release and of notifying operators that a release has occurred. For 
purposes of estimating the costs of this requirement, we assumed that 
operators would install electronic indicators on each PRD in organic 
HAP service that vents to the atmosphere to identify and record the 
time and duration of each pressure release. However, owners or 
operators could use a range of methods to satisfy these requirements, 
including the use of a parameter monitoring system that may

[[Page 17350]]

already have been in place (e.g., on the process and that is sufficient 
to notify operators immediately that a release is occurring, as well as 
recording the time and duration of the release).
    Based on our cost assumptions that the most expensive approach will 
be used, the nationwide capital cost of installing these monitors is 
$1.5 million, $1.6 million and $3.8 million for the PAI, PEPO and P&R 
IV source categories, respectively. The total annualized cost of 
installing and operating these monitors is $222,000, $242,000 and 
$566,000 for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source categories, respectively. 
For a breakdown of the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source category costs and 
other costing information, see the memorandum, Revised Cost Impacts 
Associated with the Final Pressure Relief Device Monitoring 
Requirements for the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether 
Polyols Production, and Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories, 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).

B. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    As stated in the proposal preamble (77 FR 1285, January 9, 2012), 
the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data 
submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring 
owners or operators of PAI, PEPO and P&R IV facilities to submit 
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports.
    As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, data will be 
collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using EPA-
provided software. As discussed in the proposal, the EPA-provided 
software is an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. 
The ERT will generate an electronic report package that will be 
submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 
description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through 
the CDX Web site: (www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the 
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking 
benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the 
performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 
no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
    As mentioned in the proposal preamble, state, local and tribal 
agencies may benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of 
performance test data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE 
database. Additionally, performance test data will become available to 
the public through WebFIRE. Having such data publicly available 
enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough 
discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided 
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (77 FR 
1285-1286, January 9, 2012).
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 
control strategy development and other air pollution control 
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance 
test data will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA 
significant time, money and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and air quality regulations.

V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. What changes did we make to the risk assessments for these source 
categories since proposal?

    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine whether 
certain emission standards reduce risk to an acceptable level and, once 
we have ensured that the risk is acceptable, whether the standards 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent 
an adverse environmental effect. First, we determine whether there is 
an acceptable risk. The EPA generally presumes the risk is acceptable 
if the maximum individual risk (MIR) of cancer is no higher than 100-
in-1 million. The EPA bases its overall judgment of acceptability on 
the MIR and a series of other health measures and factors. In some 
cases, these health measures and factors taken together may provide a 
more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the exposed 
population than MIR alone. If the risk is unacceptable, the EPA must 
require additional controls, without consideration of cost, to ensure 
an acceptable level of risk. After determining that the level of risk 
is acceptable, the EPA evaluates whether the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health by considering costs and 
economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility and other 
relevant factors, in addition to those health measures and factors 
considered to determine acceptability. Considering all of these 
factors, the EPA ensures that the standard is set at a level that 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, as 
required by CAA section 112(f).
    At proposal, we conducted risk assessments that provided estimates 
of the MIR posed by the allowable and actual HAP emissions from each 
source in a category, the distribution of cancer risks within the 
exposed populations, cancer incidence, hazard index (HI) for chronic 
exposures to HAP with noncancer health effects and hazard quotient (HQ) 
for acute exposures to HAP with non-cancer health effects. We found 
that the residual risks to public health from all source categories 
subject to these three MACT standards were acceptable and, further, 
that the existing standards provided an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health and no adverse environmental effects were 
expected as a result of HAP emissions from these source categories. 
Thus, we proposed that no additional controls would be required to 
address such risks.
    As a result of information received from commenters on the 
proposal, two additional facilities have been included in two of the 
P&R IV datasets. In addition, after proposal we asked several states to 
review the emissions data for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV facilities in 
their states. This review resulted in the addition and removal of 
several facilities across the three MACT standards, as well as changes 
to numerous emission points in the dataset. More information on the 
changes made to the dataset as a result of this review can be found in 
the memorandum, Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk Modeling: 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, 
and Group IV Polymers and Resins, available in the docket for the this 
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435). This updated dataset was used in the 
revised risk assessment for these source categories. A summary of the 
results of the revised risk assessment is provided below.
    For the ABS source category, the MIR decreased from 30- to 20-in-1 
million, the annual cancer incidence increased from 0.003 to 0.009 
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased 
from 0.2 to 0.3, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 
2 to 0.9, based on the

[[Page 17351]]

REL value for acetaldehyde. Table 3 provides an overall summary of the 
revised inhalation risk assessment results for the ABS source category.

                                                     Table 3--ABS Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                           risk  (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.......................................           20            20        95,000         0.009           0.3           0.3   HQREL = 0.9 acetaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the ABS source category is the spleen.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the SAN source category, the MIR increased from 0.03- to 0.4-
in-1 million, the annual cancer incidence increased from 0.000006 to 
0.0003 cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value 
increased from 0.0002 to 0.003, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value 
increased from 0.007 to 0.05, based on the REL value for methylene 
chloride. Table 4 provides an overall summary of the revised inhalation 
risk assessment results for the SAN source category.

                                                     Table 4--SAN Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................          0.4           0.4             0        0.0003         0.003         0.003   HQREL = 0.05 methylene
                                                                                                                               chloride.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the SAN source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the MBS source category, the MIR increased from 0.4- to 1-in-1 
million, the annual cancer incidence increased from 0.00003 to 0.00009 
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased 
from 0.007 to 0.02, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value increased 
from 9 to 10, based on the ERPG-1 value for ethyl acrylate. Table 5 
provides an overall summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment 
results for the MBS source category.

                                                     Table 5--MBS Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................            1             1           220       0.00009          0.02          0.02   HQERPG	1 = 10 ethyl
                                                                                                                               acrylate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MBS source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PS source category, the MIR decreased from 2- to 0.08-in-1 
million, the annual cancer incidence decreased from 0.00003 to 0.00001 
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value increased 
from 0.004 to

[[Page 17352]]

0.006, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value stayed the same at 0.3, 
based on the REL value for styrene. Table 6 provides an overall summary 
of the revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PS source 
category.

                                                     Table 6--PS Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10......................................         0.08          0.08             0       0.00001         0.006         0.006   HQREL = 0.3 styrene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PS source category is the neurological system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PET source category, the MIR increased from 9- to 10-in-1 
million, the annual cancer incidence stayed the same at 0.002 cases per 
year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value decreased from 0.5 to 
0.4, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 8 to 4, 
based on the REL value for acetaldehyde. Table 7 provides an overall 
summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PET 
source category.

                                                     Table 7--PET Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13......................................           10            10         2,300         0.002           0.4           0.4   HQREL = 4 acetaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PET source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PAI source category, the MIR decreased from 7- to 6-in-1 
million, the annual cancer incidence decreased from 0.001 to 0.0006 
cases per year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI stayed the same at 
0.7, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 8, based on 
the REL value for ethylene glycol ethyl ether, to 1, based on the REL 
value for formaldehyde. Table 8 provides an overall summary of the 
revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PAI source category.

                                                     Table 8--PAI Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18......................................            6             7           370        0.0006           0.7             4   HQREL = 1 formaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PAI source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    For the PEPO source category, the MIR stayed the same at 30-in-1 
million, the annual cancer incidence stayed the same at 0.02 cases per 
year, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value decreased from 0.8 to 
0.7, and the maximum off-site acute HQ value decreased from 6 to 4, 
based on the REL value for acrolein. Table 9 provides an overall 
summary of the revised inhalation risk assessment results for the PEPO 
source category.

[[Page 17353]]

                                                    Table 9--PEPO Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum individual cancer                              Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                            risk (in 1 million) \2\                    Annual              TOSHI \3\
                                         ----------------------------  Population      cancer    ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
        Number of facilities \1\             Actual       Allowable   at risk >= 1-   incidence      Actual       Allowable          cancer HQ \4\
                                            emissions     emissions   in-1 million   (cases per     emissions     emissions
                                              level         level                       year)         level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23......................................           30            30       140,000          0.02           0.7           0.7   HQREL = 4 acrolein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PEPO source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
  shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
  lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the revised risk assessment did not significantly 
change the maximum risk levels to the most exposed individual for these 
source categories and did not affect our determinations regarding risk 
acceptability and ample margin of safety. The full results of the 
revised risk assessment for the source categories can be found in the 
risk assessment documentation available in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source categories 
addressed in these final rules. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A discussion of the 
uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships is 
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. See 77 FR 1280-1282 
(January 9, 2012).

B. What changes did we make to the affirmative defense provisions since 
proposal?

    We proposed a 2-day notification requirement for asserting an 
affirmative defense in 40 CFR 63.1310(k) of subpart JJJ, 40 CFR 
63.1360(k) of subpart MMM and 40 CFR 63.1420(i) of subpart PPP. 
Consistent with other recent actions by the EPA (e.g., NESHAP for 
Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production (77 FR 22848, April 17, 
2012)), we have revised these sections in the final rules to allow an 
owner or operator of the affected source seeking to assert an 
affirmative defense, after experiencing an exceedance of its emission 
limit(s) or a violation of an emission standard during a malfunction, 
to submit a written report to the Administrator. The owner or operator 
may submit this report in the first periodic compliance report, 
deviation report or excess emissions report otherwise required after 
the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard. 
However, if the next report is due less than 45 days after the 
violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the next 
report after that. This change provides sources with sufficient time to 
demonstrate that they have met the required affirmative defense 
criteria. In addition, we have revised the affirmative defense 
provisions to clarify that these provisions are applicable where there 
have been ``violations of emission standards,'' rather than ``excess 
emissions,'' during malfunctions.

C. What changes did we make to the PRD provisions since proposal?

    We have clarified in each of the three MACT standards that new 
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or 
before January 12, 2012, and existing affected sources have three years 
to comply with the PRD monitoring requirements. We proposed that 
facilities subject to these MACT standards would have to install a 
release indicator on each PRD in organic HAP service that releases to 
the atmosphere. In the final rules, we have revised this requirement so 
that facilities may comply with these requirements using existing 
parameter monitoring systems that notify operators immediately when a 
pressure release occurs. In the proposal, we proposed that a release to 
the atmosphere from a PRD was a violation of the rule. In the final 
rule, we have clarified that a pressure release to the atmosphere from 
a PRD in organic HAP service is prohibited.

D. What changes did we make to the Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 
standards since proposal?

    The final rule P&R IV amendments take into account startup and 
shutdown periods by establishing alternative compliance demonstration 
methods for meeting standards for continuous process vents during 
startup and shutdown periods.
    We are also amending 40 CFR 63.14 to add the test methods 
incorporated by reference for the technical standards we are finalizing 
for the PCCT at the one Group IV Polymers and Resins facility in the 
PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory.

E. What changes did we make to the Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production MACT standards since proposal?

    The final rule PAI amendments provide an alternative monitoring 
option for packed-bed scrubbers that allows the measurement of the 
liquid-to-gas ratio (according to 40 CFR 63.994(c)) in lieu of the 
scrubber liquid flow rate or pressure drop.
    We are also revising the definition of ``pesticide active 
ingredient'' to reflect changes made to EPA Form 3540-16, subsequent to 
the promulgation of the MACT standards. The revised definition 
clarifies that PAI materials are identified by product classification 
codes used to represent PAIs, and are the same codes used in block 19 
of the 1999 version of EPA Form 3540-16, the Pesticides Report for 
Pesticide-Producing Establishment.

F. What changes did we make to the Polyether Polyols Production MACT 
standards since proposal?

    The final rule PEPO amendments have not been changed since 
proposal.

G. What other changes did we make since proposal?

    We have revised the language of the PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards 
to require quarterly reporting only when there have been repeat 
excursions for the same equipment in consecutive semiannual reporting 
periods. Excursions can result from monitoring parameter levels being 
outside established ranges or from a lack of sufficient data to 
determine compliance

[[Page 17354]]

with the emission limits. These excursions are considered violations of 
the standards and must be reported in the semiannual report. While we 
proposed to remove the one excursion per semiannual reporting period 
allowance from these subparts, this would result in facilities being 
required to perform quarterly reporting for the affected source if any 
point at that affected source experienced an excursion. This would be 
overly burdensome for both the facility and the reviewing agency and 
was not the intention of the original MACT standards. To remedy this 
situation, we are finalizing the removal of the one-excursion-per-
semiannual-reporting-period allowance, but revising the reporting 
requirements to require quarterly reporting only when there have been 
repeat excursions for the same equipment in consecutive semiannual 
reporting periods. This will ensure enhanced reporting is carried out 
only for equipment with potential compliance issues.
    For each NESHAP, we have also clarified the requirements for 
Precompliance Reports/Plans where an initial Precompliance Report/Plan 
is needed after the compliance date for the rule. Since a Precompliance 
Report/Plan is only required where certain compliance options are 
chosen or alternative compliance options are being requested, not all 
existing sources would have submitted a Precompliance Report/Plan prior 
to the compliance date and not all new sources would have submitted one 
with the application for construction or reconstruction. The revisions 
added today clarify that sources may submit a Precompliance Report/Plan 
to request alternative compliance options after the compliance date has 
passed or construction or preconstruction applications have already 
been submitted.
    In addition, we have also made several technical corrections for 
each NESHAP. These amendments are being finalized to correct 
inaccuracies and oversights that were previously promulgated.

VI. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the 
Proposed Rule

    We received written comments from 21 commenters during the comment 
period and three comment letters after the close of the comment period. 
The following is a summary of the significant comments received and our 
responses to these comments. The complete list of comments received and 
our responses to those comments can be found in the Response to 
Comments document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0435).
    For the purposes of this document, the text within the comment 
summaries was provided by the commenter(s) and represents their 
opinion(s), regardless of whether the summary specifically indicates 
that the statement is from a commenter(s) (e.g., ``The commenter 
states'' or ``The commenters assert''). The comment summaries do not 
represent the EPA's opinion unless our response to a comment expressly 
agrees with all of the comment or the relevant portion of that comment.

A. Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters stated that the EPA had not provided 
factual evidence or adequate justification for requiring control of 
emissions from PRDs. One commenter argued that the EPA provided no data 
to support the claim that a large number of releases occur and may emit 
large quantities of HAP, or to support the contention that releases are 
not being identified. Other commenters stated that the EPA had not 
conducted this portion of the rulemaking according to the procedures 
set out by the CAA for the establishment of MACT standards. Commenters 
added that they did not believe that the EPA has a legal obligation nor 
the discretion to promulgate the proposed PRD provisions because the 
PRD monitoring and reporting requirements were not derived from the 
technology reviews, in response to any residual risks detected, or the 
D.C. Circuit's invalidation of the SSM provisions in the 40 CFR Part 63 
General Provisions. Some commenters opined that since the MACT 
standards were established without consideration of PRD emissions, it 
is inappropriate for the EPA to state that emissions from PRDs violate 
the MACT standards.
    Response: Under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate 
technology-based standards that reflect the maximum degree of emission 
reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts), 
and such standards must contain compliance assurance provisions to make 
sure that they are practicably enforceable. Nothing in the CAA or its 
legislative history suggests that the EPA is prohibited from reviewing 
and revising MACT standards and their compliance assurance provisions, 
except as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA section 112(f) 
reviews or an action taken in response to a ruling by a court. The 
amendments being finalized for PRD releases do not impose new emission 
standards for which a MACT analysis is required by the CAA. Instead, 
they prohibit releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP 
service that are no longer appropriate following the 2008 Sierra Club 
v. EPA ruling, and impose additional monitoring requirements to address 
potential releases.
    As noted in a report prepared by the SCAQMD, releases from PRDs 
occur randomly and the emissions can only be approximated. Based on 
their analysis of refinery PRD reports of PRD releases from 9 
facilities in their district, there were 8 PRD releases from 2003 to 
2006 that were estimated to release greater than 2,000 lbs of emissions 
to the atmosphere, and 8 PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that were 
estimated to release between 500 and 2,000 lbs of emissions to the 
atmosphere.\5\ The SCAQMD analysis focuses on volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions (which would also include organic HAP emissions). 
Additionally, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Emission 
Event Reporting Database is populated with Emission Event Reports from 
both the refinery and chemical sectors where the reason for the report 
was due to a PRD release.\6\ These final amendments simply prohibit PRD 
releases to the atmosphere and require that these devices now be 
monitored to indicate when these releases occur and be reported, so 
that HAP emissions that may potentially occur from releases can be 
mitigated as soon as possible. Additionally, the final rule requirement 
to report PRD releases ensures that these releases will be reported 
nationally and not just in some states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1173--
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from 
Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants.'' Planning, 
Rule Development and Area Sources, South Coast Air Quality 
Management District. May 15, 2007.
    \6\ See http://www11.tceq.texas.gov/oce/eer/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency generally remains free to revise previously promulgated 
rules to correct newly identified problems, even in the absence of a 
remand from a Court. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery Props., 
Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 (1966). In light of, and consistent with, the 
2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, the EPA is eliminating the SSM 
exemption in the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards and requiring that 
the standards in these rules apply at all times, including during 
periods of SSM. In addition, in order for our treatment of malfunction-
caused pressure releases to the atmosphere to conform with the 
reasoning of the Court's ruling, the final rule adds a provision 
stating that HAP

[[Page 17355]]

emissions releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in organic HAP service 
are prohibited. To prohibit these malfunction-caused releases, it is 
not necessary for us to set an emission standard that is based on a 
MACT floor or beyond-floor analysis (see section IV.A of this 
preamble); indeed, the EPA has consistently explained that we are not 
required to take malfunctions into account in setting standards or to 
devise standards that apply specifically to malfunction-caused 
emissions, such as PRD releases that cause HAP emissions only during 
malfunctions. However, based on comments received, we have modified the 
PRD monitoring provisions in the final rule. The final rule includes 
detection and pressure release management requirements that can be used 
by facilities to mitigate emissions during pressure release events from 
PRDs while allowing owners or operators greater flexibility based on 
their current equipment and operations. The final rule requires that 
sources monitor PRDs using a system that is capable of identifying and 
recording the time and duration of each pressure release and of 
immediately notifying operators that a release is occurring. As with 
any malfunction event, an affirmative defense against civil penalties 
would be available for a PRD release to the atmosphere if the facility 
can prove the elements of that defense.
    Comment: Several commenters reported that there are other 
approaches for monitoring PRDs, including continuous monitoring of 
process parameters, noting that many companies have process control 
computer systems that already have alarms to notify the operator of 
deviations from normal operations and automatically adjust process 
operations to prevent upsets. One commenter suggested that pressure 
relief valves with an upstream rupture disc should be considered to 
have adequate monitoring already because there is pressure monitoring 
of the space between the two. The commenter also suggested that 
monitoring of ambient air within the vicinity of a process for leaks be 
considered a valid alternative, as this would provide reasonable 
assurance that the opening of a relief device would be noticed.
    Another commenter opined that the EPA had not provided any 
information about the reliability or suitability of the wireless 
indicators on which the EPA based its PRD monitoring cost estimates. 
The commenter stated that the wireless indicators assumed in the cost 
analysis are similar to the ``Burst Alert Sensors'' used at one of the 
commenter's facilities. The commenter notes these devices have limited 
applicability, such as an 8-inch maximum pipe diameter, and -
40[emsp14][deg]F to 185[emsp14][deg]F temperature range, and the EPA 
has not provided any data or information on the use or reliability of 
these devices in chemical plants or the more specific types of 
facilities in the source categories addressed by the proposed rule. The 
commenter noted these monitors exhibit a high false alarm rate and 
issues in areas where freezing occurs.
    Commenters also expressed that the EPA provided no information in 
the proposed rule about which devices and types of data are acceptable 
for determining the duration of a PRD opening.
    Response: Based on technological and cost concerns expressed by 
industry, we have reassessed the proposed requirement to prescribe the 
use of release indicators and alarms for each PRD. We acknowledge that 
there are other valid and potentially less costly approaches for 
monitoring PRDs and determining when a pressure release from a PRD has 
occurred for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV source categories. As there are 
other approaches we believe to be equally effective (and potentially 
more reliable under certain circumstances for these source categories) 
as the proposed indicators and alarms, we have added flexibility in the 
rules. The final rules allow each PRD in organic HAP service to be 
equipped with a device or system that is capable of identifying and 
recording the time and duration of each pressure release (e.g., rupture 
disk indicators, magnetic sensors, motion detectors on the pressure 
relief valve stem, flow monitors, and pressure monitors) in lieu of 
prescribing that PRDs be equipped with release indicators and alarms.
    Comment: Several industry commenters stated that the EPA did not 
consider the burden of data collection from PRD monitors, operation and 
maintenance costs or the costs of installing electronic indicators for 
every pressure relief valve. Commenters also opined that the cost 
estimates that the EPA used ($5,000 to $10,000) for the cost of the 
proposed PRD monitoring units at proposal were low and provided PRD 
monitoring unit cost estimates ranging from $14,000 to $30,000 per 
unit. One commenter stated that the costs cited by the EPA are for 
wireless monitors only and that there may be cases where more expensive 
wired connections would be necessary. One commenter opined that the 
EPA's estimate of $1,409 per PRD monitoring unit was lower than the 
SCAQMD document cited by the EPA (which includes costs ranging from 
$5,000 to $10,000 per PRD monitoring unit).
    A few commenters asserted that the EPA underestimated the number of 
PRDs that would be subject to PRD monitoring requirements for some 
facilities and companies. One commenter estimated that one of their 
facilities had 122 PRDs and one company reported an estimated 300 PRDs 
for their 2 facilities that would be subject to the proposed MACT 
standards.
    One commenter stated that, based on historical PRD emissions 
release data from 2009 to 2011 at the facilities of the commenter's 
company, there was one release event of 25 pounds. The commenter 
asserted that, considering these emissions data, their estimated cost 
of the proposed PRD monitoring requirements would be approximately 
$73,000/pound emissions released.
    Response: As noted above, based on comments received at proposal we 
reassessed both our cost analysis and PRD monitoring requirements. The 
final rules have been amended to allow each PRD in organic HAP service 
to be equipped with a device or system that is capable of identifying 
and recording the time and duration of each pressure release (e.g., 
rupture disk indicators, magnetic sensors, motion detectors on the 
pressure relief valve stem, flow monitors, and pressure monitors) in 
lieu of prescribing that PRDs be equipped with release indicators and 
alarms.
    Although we are adding flexibility to the monitoring options an 
owner or operator has for PRD releases for these source categories in 
the final rule amendments, we maintained, for the purposes of costing, 
that owners and operators would install electronic indicators on each 
relief device that vents to the atmosphere to identify releases when 
they occur. We recognize that facility operations and configurations 
will vary for differing facilities based on the number of PRDs in 
operation at a given facility and have attempted to address those 
variances in our revised costs.\7\ This would amount to approximately 
$1,409 per PRD. We have revised the estimate of PRD system costs based 
on an estimated cost per PRD monitoring device combined with source-
category specific estimates of the number of PRDs. Based on a report 
prepared by the SCAQMD, the total cost of a PRD monitoring device is 
estimated

[[Page 17356]]

to be in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 (2007 dollars).\8\ For our 
analysis, we assumed the PRD monitoring device to cost in the midpoint 
of the range ($7,500 [2007 dollars]), and we adjusted that cost to 2012 
dollars ($8,345). Assuming a 10 year equipment life and 7% interest, 
the annualized PRD monitoring device cost is estimated to be 
approximately $1,185. At proposal, as one commenter acknowledges, we 
adopted an average facility cost of a PRD monitoring system, assuming 
134 PRDs, to be $188,913 based on analyses performed for the proposed 
standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers source category.\9\ 
Based on PRD data and models that we have developed for the PAI, PEPO 
and P&R IV source categories, most facility operations subject to these 
source categories are anticipated to have less than 76 PRDs. Based on 
this information, we have adjusted our PRD monitoring system costs to 
range from an estimated $69,233 to $112,180 for these source 
categories, and the annualized monitoring system capital cost estimates 
per facility range from $9,800 to $15,900 for these source 
categories.\10\ Although our proposed and revised costs may be low for 
some facilities, the costs will likely be an overestimate for other 
facilities. Additionally, by allowing facilities the option to monitor 
parameters in order to detect PRD releases, we believe that our revised 
costs are conservative in that they reflect the upper range of our 
estimated PRD monitoring system costs per source category and presume 
that sources will choose to install electronic indicators and alarms 
versus complying with the rule by using parameter monitoring. However, 
it is highly likely that many sources will choose to install or use 
existing parameter monitoring systems (and not electronic indicators 
and alarms), and the cost of such a system would likely be less than 
the costs estimated for the use of electronic indicators and alarms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Revised Cost Impacts Associated with the Final 
Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements for the Pesticide 
Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, and 
Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories.'' Memorandum from 
EC/R Incorporated to Nick Parsons, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. January 31, 2014. (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435.)
    \8\ See footnote 5.
    \9\ See ``Costs and Emission Reductions of the Proposed 
Standards for the Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers (PVC) Production 
Source Category.'' Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc. to 
Jodi Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 13, 2011. 
(Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037-1002.)
    \10\ See footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost-effectiveness numbers are estimated to evaluate the benefit of 
implementing a control measure; the final PRD monitoring requirements, 
although likely to result in a reduction in HAP emissions from the 
affected facilities, are being required to ensure continuous compliance 
with existing emission standards. Therefore, while we consider the 
costs of this monitoring technology to be reasonable, a cost-
effectiveness analysis that would be appropriate for a new emission 
standard imposing new control requirements to reduce HAP emissions by 
an estimable amount was not considered for this monitoring requirement. 
We have prohibited releases from PRDs because we believe it is 
inconsistent with the Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) ruling. We consider PRD releases to be malfunctions and 
acknowledge these releases do not occur frequently and in specific 
cases may or may not result in significant releases to the atmosphere.

B. Startup and Shutdown Periods

    Comment: Two commenters requested that the EPA provide a means to 
demonstrate compliance during startup and shutdown periods, including 
the establishment of work practices for subpart JJJ. The commenters 
stated that while emissions during startup and shutdown may not be 
higher than during normal operations, it may not be possible to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for these specific 
periods. The commenters argued that, for units complying with a unit of 
mass emitted per unit of product produced or destruction efficiency 
standard, demonstrating compliance is problematic as production 
approaches zero. One commenter suggested a long averaging time, such as 
30 days, be incorporated to resolve this problem. Commenters also 
suggested that a work practice standard could be established for these 
periods to require emissions during startup and shutdown be routed to 
an operating control device that has been demonstrated to achieve the 
required destruction efficiency or that facilities be allowed to 
demonstrate compliance by showing that control device operating 
parameters are maintained at a level that has been demonstrated to meet 
standards during continuous steady-state conditions.
    One commenter asserted that the EPA cannot speculate that 
facilities can meet the normal operations emissions limitation during 
periods of startup and shutdown and must conduct a thorough analysis of 
emissions from the best performing sources during startup and shutdown 
and base the standards on the results of that analysis.
    Response: We do not agree with commenters that alternative work 
practice standards should be established for P&R IV continuous process 
vents during startup and shutdown periods. The existing rule includes 
flexible continuous process vent control compliance options. Current 
regulations allow owners or operators to comply by meeting a production 
based limit, reducing emissions by 98 percent in a combustion device or 
to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry 
basis (whichever is less stringent); combust the emissions in a boiler 
or process heater with a specified design heat input capacity or by 
introducing emissions into the flame zone; or combust emissions in a 
flare meeting specification requirements. Nonetheless, alternative 
compliance demonstration method options for meeting production-based 
limits are included in the final rule to address commenters' concerns 
regarding meeting production-based limits as production approaches 
zero. The final rule allows owners or operators to demonstrate 
compliance with continuous process vent production-based limits during 
startup and shutdown periods by either: (1) Keeping records that 
establish the raw material feed rate and production rate were both 
zero; (2) meeting the limit by dividing the emission rate during 
startup or shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most 
recent performance test associated with a production rate greater than 
zero; or (3) keeping records that establish the operating parameters of 
the control device used to comply with the rule were maintained at the 
level established to meet the emission limit at maximum representative 
operating conditions. We believe the addition of the alternative 
compliance demonstration method options for startup and shutdown 
periods addresses commenters' concerns while meeting the intended 
emission reduction requirements.
    We disagree with the commenter that claimed the EPA should have 
performed a more thorough analysis of emissions during periods of 
startup and shutdown prior to proposal, as at that time we did not have 
information to suggest that sources could not meet the emission 
standards during these times. It is only as a result of commenter input 
that the EPA was made aware of potential issues with compliance during 
periods of startup and shutdown for sources subject to the P&R IV MACT 
standards, and, as previously stated, we have revised the final rule to 
account for these periods.

C. P&R IV Equipment Leak and PCCT Provisions for Previously-Unregulated 
Sources

    Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA does not have the 
authority to reconsider previously-issued MACT standards. The commenter 
states that

[[Page 17357]]

the EPA cannot reconsider aspects of previously issued MACT standards 
unrelated to ``development in practices, processes, and control 
technologies,'' under CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter also states 
the EPA cannot change its mind about what standards are required to 
comply with CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), nor recalculate a floor 
based on subsequent performance. The commenter adds that reassessing 
MACT standards and imposing more stringent requirements would also be 
inconsistent with Congress's desire for finality evident in the 
judicial review provisions of CAA section 307(b), which provides that 
challenges to MACT standards must be raised within 60 days of their 
promulgation, assuring that regulated entities, the EPA, and the public 
know what emissions limitations will apply to a source rather than 
having those limitations be subject to flux. The commenter states that 
even if the EPA had the authority to change the existing MACT 
standards, it could not reasonably make the revised standards effective 
immediately. The commenter notes that CAA section 112(i) allows for a 
compliance deadline of up to 3 years.
    Response: In Medical Waste Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425-27 
(D.C. Cir. 2011), the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA may permissibly 
amend prior MACT determinations, including amendments to improperly 
promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under CAA section 
129(a)(2), which is analogous to the authority in CAA section 112(d)(2) 
and (3). The lack of judicial invalidation on these issues is a 
distinction without a difference. National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34; 
see also Medical Waste Institute, 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT 
floor, based on post-compliance data, permissible when originally-
established floor was improperly established, and permissibility of the 
EPA's action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded 
or vacated). See also our response in section VI.A above. The D.C. 
Circuit's decision in Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 
(D.C. Cir. 2011) confirms the EPA is not constrained by CAA section 
112(d)(6) and it may reassess its standards more often, including 
revising MACT floors pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). The 
commenter is thus incorrect that the EPA lacks authority to set MACT 
standards under 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) for PCCT and equipment leaks from 
the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory 
that were not controlled under the initial P&R IV MACT standards. Put 
another way, if the EPA did not adopt a proper MACT standard initially, 
it is not amending a MACT standard but adopting one for the first time. 
That is the case here for PCCT and equipment leaks from the PET 
continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory that 
were not controlled under the initial P&R IV MACT standards. The EPA 
adopted no MACT standard for these emission points, an approach soundly 
rejected by the D.C. Circuit in National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 633-34. 
Consequently, the EPA is not barred from making MACT floor and beyond-
the-floor determinations and issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(2) and (3) in this rulemaking.
    The EPA is not invoking CAA section 112(d)(6) or 112(f)(2) as its 
authority to promulgate the MACT standards for currently uncontrolled 
sources. Rather, the EPA is promulgating these MACT standards for the 
first time pursuant to sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the provisions that 
directly govern the promulgation of MACT standards. Using CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) ensures the process and considerations are those 
associated with initially establishing a MACT standard. Contrary to the 
commenter's assertion that the EPA conducted new MACT floor analyses 
for standards currently in effect in setting MACT standards to address 
certain unregulated sources, the EPA is not establishing these MACT 
standards under section 112(d)(6). As explained above, the EPA is 
promulgating new standards, not reevaluating the original standards, 
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA's action to set MACT 
standards for PCCT and equipment leaks from the PET continuous TPA high 
viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory, which were not regulated 
in the original MACT standards, is consistent with several recent 
rulemakings, in which we have addressed underlying defects or made 
other necessary revisions or clarifications in existing NESHAP under 
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), the provisions that directly govern the 
initial promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 
2009, 74 FR 55670; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading 
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing 
Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566).
    The EPA proposed setting MACT standards for the first time for 
equipment leaks from the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end 
finisher subcategory that were left unregulated in the original NESHAP. 
Establishing standards for these emission points does not involve 
developing a new MACT floor analysis for MACT standards currently in 
effect. In the original NESHAP, the EPA exempted sources producing PET 
using a continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher process 
from the requirements for equipment leaks. The EPA established MACT 
standards for the other P&R IV source categories, but left unregulated 
this subcategory of PET production. Therefore, the EPA is establishing 
for the first time MACT standards for the PET continuous TPA high 
viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory. Based on available data on 
the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher 
subcategory, the EPA performed the MACT floor and beyond-the floor 
analyses to determine the MACT standards for this subcategory. In doing 
so, the EPA did not reanalyze the MACT floor analysis for the standards 
established in the original NESHAP for the other P&R IV source 
categories.
    Regarding the proposed MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) 
and (3) for PCCT from the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 
end finisher subcategory, the EPA originally promulgated standards for 
this emission point in the original P&R IV MACT standards. However, 
these standards were a beyond-the-floor option and were subsequently 
stayed indefinitely. Based on available data on the PET continuous TPA 
high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory, the EPA performed the 
MACT floor and beyond-the floor analyses to determine the MACT 
standards for this subcategory. The EPA then proposed to re-set the 
previously stayed MACT standard as an emission standard that reflects 
the MACT floor option. In doing so, the EPA did not reanalyze the MACT 
floor analysis for the standards established in the original NESHAP for 
the other P&R IV source categories.
    Comment: One commenter opined that the work practice equipment leak 
provisions the EPA proposed for PET sources using a continuous TPA high 
viscosity multiple end finisher are unacceptable and that the EPA 
should set a no-leak standard since leak-less valves are available. The 
commenter asserted that the EPA has not demonstrated it is not 
technologically or economically practicable to measure and control 
fugitive emissions numerically, as required under section 112(h). The 
commenter stated that the EPA must at least investigate

[[Page 17358]]

measurement techniques, such as remote sensing, before reaching the 
conclusion that only work practice standards are ``feasible.'' The 
commenter urged the EPA to set both numerical and work practice 
standards for equipment leaks. The commenter also stated that under 
section 112(d)(2) the EPA must consider requiring facilities to enclose 
systems or processes to eliminate emissions and requiring capture of 
fugitive emissions, which it has not done. The commenter opined that 
the EPA must use the most up-to-date leak detection and repair (LDAR) 
practices used in similar industries if the EPA determines that LDAR 
practices are the only way to control such emissions. The commenter 
also says that the EPA must set an absolute limit on how much of the 
equipment can be allowed to leak.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that the equipment leak 
standard set for PET sources using a continuous TPA high viscosity 
multiple end finisher is inappropriate. This source of emissions was 
previously unregulated by the MACT standards, and we have established 
standards for these emissions for the first time. Following the 
procedures of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), we established the MACT 
floor based on the best performing facilities in the source category or 
subcategory. As there is only one facility in this source subcategory, 
the current practices at the facility represent the best performing 
facility in the subcategory and the MACT floor. We performed a beyond-
the-floor analysis to consider other technology available, including 
the LDAR program required by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), which 
is the required level of control for other facilities subject to the 
P&R IV MACT standards, and found this program to not be cost effective. 
See the memorandum, Re-Evaluation of Equipment Leak Emissions and Costs 
at PET Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket Item 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-0059). We believe the HON LDAR program 
represents the most feasible and cost-effective beyond-the-floor 
option, as anything with more stringent requirements or more expensive 
equipment would only further increase the costs relative to the 
emission reductions. This was demonstrated in our analysis of leak-less 
valves performed as part of the ample margin of safety analysis for the 
PET source category, which showed very high costs relative to emission 
reductions for facilities that already have the HON LDAR program in 
place (see the memorandum, Impacts of Control Options to Address 
Residual Risks for the Pesticide Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 
and Polymers and Resins IV Production Source Categories, available in 
the docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-
0006)). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(77 FR 1293), the established work practice standards are consistent 
with CAA section 112(h). Applying a measurement methodology to this 
class of sources is not technologically and economically feasible due 
to the number of openings and possible emission points, and because the 
fugitive emissions cannot be routed to a conveyance designed to capture 
such emissions. See the memorandum, Re-Evaluation of Equipment Leak 
Emissions and Costs at PET Facilities, available in the docket for this 
action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435-0059). We also note that 
the EPA is not permitted to set both a numerical and work practice 
standard for an emission point. A work practice standard may only be 
established when it is not technologically and economically feasible to 
establish a numerical emission standard. See CAA section 112(h).

D. Technology Review

    Comment: One commenter asserted the EPA did not show that it looked 
for improvements in any of the technologies reviewed under section 
112(d)(6), and noted several such improvements. These improvements 
include leak-less valves, seal-less pumps, welded connections, and the 
use of passive optical gas imaging (OGI) devices to reduce equipment 
leaks. The commenter also stated that the EPA should also require lower 
leak definitions of 100 ppm for valves, connectors and other equipment; 
500 ppm for pumps, compressors, and pressure relief valves; tighter 
repair timelines of minimization of leaks within 24 hours of 
identification and repairs within seven days; and repairs using the 
best available technologies for frequent or high emissions leakers, all 
of which are the requirements in the California Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District and the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District. For other emission sources, the commenter opined that the EPA 
must prohibit flaring and require complete capture through flare gas 
recovery systems because it is widely believed that flares do not 
reduce HAP emissions to the level previously understood and flares 
create new toxic air emissions. The commenter asserted the EPA should 
also require the use of remote sensing technology as a routine matter 
for all current sources, considering a 2009 report showing reductions 
from the Texas Petrochemicals Houston plant using this technology. The 
commenter further asserted the EPA must consider developments noted in 
a 2008 report by the Environmental Integrity Project and other authors 
for control of fugitive emissions from storage tanks and wastewater and 
improved monitoring and repair for tanks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Houston, We Have a Problem--A Roadmap for Reducing 
Petrochemical Industry Toxic Emissions in the Lone Star State.'' 
Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention, Industry 
Professionals for Clean Air, Environmental Defense Fund, and 
Environmental Integrity Project. May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In our CAA section 112(d)(6) review of pre-existing 
standards, we consider both improvements in practices, processes or 
control technologies that we may have previously considered, as well as 
practices, processes or control technologies that are new, or were 
unknown to us when the original MACT standards were developed. Because 
incremental changes in the practices, processes or control technologies 
can have a significant impact on emissions, these changes are 
considered in our analysis of whether to revise the MACT standards 
under CAA section 112(d)(6). In considering both existing and new 
practices, processes and control technologies, we consider costs and 
other factors in determining whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the 
existing standard.
    The commenter suggested we analyze ``leak-less'' technologies such 
as leak-less valves, seal-less pumps, and welded connections. Packing 
combinations for valves and gaskets for flanges that significantly 
reduce emissions are in place in some facilities, particularly oil 
refineries. Facilities and packing manufacturers have created emission 
testing protocols for low leak packing in order to study and test their 
effectiveness.\12\ Costs for leak-less valves were previously estimated 
for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI).\13\ 
Using these estimates, we analyzed the costs associated with requiring 
leak-less valve technology for each of these

[[Page 17359]]

source categories. Annual costs per source category ranged from $1.3 
million/yr to $30.1 million/yr per facility for each of the source 
categories, with total capital investments ranging from $9.2 million to 
$220 million. Emission reductions were assumed to be 100 percent and 
ranged from 5.2 to 123.4 tpy of HAP per source category, resulting in a 
cost effectiveness of $244,000/ton HAP. We do not consider this cost 
effectiveness to be reasonable and, as a result, do not consider leak-
less valves to be economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Analysis of Emission Reduction Techniques for 
Equipment Leaks.'' Memorandum from C. Hancy, RTI International, to 
Jodi Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 21, 
2011. (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869-0029).
    \13\ See ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Proposed Rule.'' 71 FR 
34422, June 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggested we evaluate seal-less pump and welded 
connections. However, we do not have cost information that can be used 
to estimate costs for these technologies and the commenter did not 
provide such costs.
    The commenter suggested we evaluate OGI devices as an advancement 
in technology. We note that the General Provisions for NESHAP at 40 CFR 
63.11(c) through (e) already allows the use of OGI as an alternative 
work practice (AWP) to the traditional LDAR monitoring program (e.g., 
EPA Method 21). Section 63.11(c) through (e) allows the use of OGI 
along with an annual EPA Method 21 survey of all of the equipment.
    We conducted a technology review to assess lowering the leak 
definition for valves to the 100 ppm level used by Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District (BAAQMD).\14\ We evaluated the incremental cost 
effectiveness between retaining the leak definition of 500 ppm (as 
proposed) and a leak definition of 100 ppm. According to our analysis, 
the incremental cost effectiveness for all three source categories 
ranged from $16,000/ton HAP to $18,000/ton HAP. We do not consider this 
to be cost effective. In our technology review, we also evaluated the 
BAAQMD program for tightening the repair timeline for components 
awaiting repair.\15\ According to our analysis, the cost effectiveness 
for all three source categories ranged from $11,000/ton HAP to $99,000/
ton HAP. We do not consider this to be cost effective. As a result, the 
final rule retains the leak definition for valves of 500 ppm and the 
current repair schedule, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``Supplemental Technology Review for Equipment Leaks in 
Group IV Polymers and Resins, Pesticide Active Ingredient 
Production, and Polyether Polyols Production Source Categories.'' 
Memorandum from EC/R Incorporated to Nick Parsons, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. January 31, 2014. (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435.)
    \15\ See footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, as a part of our technology review, we conducted an analysis 
to determine the economic feasibility of lowering the leak definition 
for pumps to 500 ppm, as compared to the current leak definition of 
2,000 ppm.\16\ We evaluated the incremental cost effectiveness between 
retaining the leak definition of 2,000 ppm (as proposed) and a leak 
definition of 500 ppm. According to our analysis, the incremental cost 
effectiveness for all three source categories was $29,000/ton HAP. We 
do not consider this to be cost effective and, as a result, the final 
rule retains the leak definition for pumps of 2,000 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter suggested that we evaluate lowering the leak 
definition for pressure relief devices to 500 ppm. For all three source 
categories, the existing requirements for pressure relief devices 
already specify operation with no detectable emissions, defined as an 
instrument reading above 500 ppm.
    We are not at this point able to agree with the premise underlying 
the commenter's suggestions that flaring should be entirely prohibited 
in the subject source categories in favor of complete capture through 
flare gas recovery systems. As further discussed elsewhere, the EPA is 
currently studying the performance of flares to control HAP emissions, 
and we do not yet have sufficient performance data for the PAI, PEPO 
and P&R IV source categories. Therefore, we are not at this time 
prepared to finalize any changes to the currently applicable 
regulations pertaining to the performance of flares in the PAI, PEPO, 
and P&R IV source categories, including prohibiting flaring in favor of 
complete capture. We may explore whether to revise flare requirements 
in the future, if we conclude that new requirements are warranted and 
would be applicable to subject source categories.
    In the meantime, we note that none of the EPA's MACT standards 
currently require the use of flare gas recovery systems, and the use of 
flare gas recovery systems, while prevalent in the petroleum refining 
source category, has not yet been demonstrated as being applicable to 
these or other chemical manufacturing source categories, primarily due 
to the variety of chemical compounds being sent to the flare (e.g., 
streams from multiple chemical manufacturing process units are often 
sent to the same flare header system). This issue would particularly 
need further analysis in order to consider the commenter's suggestion, 
and we are not at this point prepared to resolve it. The commenter 
provided no data regarding this issue that would have enabled us to 
promulgate its suggested revision. Nor did the commenter provide data 
to support the assertion that flaring from these source categories 
``can create new toxic air emissions.'' Therefore, the EPA is not 
presently able to agree with the commenter's claim that the benefits of 
the use of flares, especially as a backup control device to reduce HAP 
emissions, are outweighed by secondary HAP emissions that may be caused 
by flaring, such that prohibiting flaring entirely is warranted at this 
point in the EPA's continuing analysis.

VII. Impacts of the Final Rules

A. What are the air impacts?

    We are finalizing new emission standards for equipment leaks and 
PCCT in the PET continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher 
subcategory regulated by the P&R IV MACT standards at the MACT floor 
emissions levels currently achieved by the one facility in this 
subcategory. As a result, no additional emission reductions from 
equipment leaks and PCCT in this subcategory will be realized, although 
increases in emissions in the future will be prevented. For the final 
revisions to the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards regarding SSM and 
PRDs, these changes will result in fewer emissions during SSM periods 
and PRD releases or less frequent SSM periods or PRD releases. However, 
the emission reductions, while tangible, are difficult to quantify and 
are not included in our assessment of air quality impacts. Therefore, 
no quantifiable air quality impacts are expected to result from the 
final amendments to these three MACT standards. While we are unable to 
quantify these emission reductions, we expect that emissions will 
decrease as a result of this rulemaking.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the final amendments, facilities in the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV 
source categories are expected to incur initial capital and annual 
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with the PRD monitoring 
requirements and other recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The 
capital costs for each facility were estimated based on available 
information on the subject source categories and data collected for 
other EPA projects. The total annual costs for the PAI source category 
are estimated to be $222,000. The total annual costs for the PEPO 
source category are estimated to be $242,000. For the P&R IV source 
categories, the total annual costs are estimated to be $566,000. The 
memorandum titled, Revised Cost Impacts Associated with

[[Page 17360]]

the Final Pressure Relief Device Monitoring Requirements for the 
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, Polyether Polyols Production, 
and Group IV Polymers and Resins Source Categories, includes a complete 
description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0435).
    Though the cost savings cannot be monetized, consistent with 
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 
issued on January 18, 2011, the electronic reporting requirements being 
finalized in this action for performance test reports are expected to 
reduce the burden for the PAI, PEPO and P&R IV facilities in the future 
by cutting back on the recordkeeping costs and the costs that would be 
associated with fewer or less-substantial data collection requests (due 
to performance test information being readily available on the EPA's 
WebFIRE database). Although the use of electric reporting may reduce 
the recordkeeping and reporting burden for facilities in the future, 
facilities will still incur annualized costs, on net, due to these 
final amendments.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    We estimate that there will be no more than a 0.01-percent price 
change and a similar reduction in output associated with this action. 
This is based on the costs of the rule and the responsiveness of 
producers and consumers to supply and demand elasticities for the 
industries affected by this action. The impacts to affected firms will 
be low because the annual compliance costs are small when compared to 
the annual revenues for the affected parent firms (much less than 1 
percent for each). The impacts to affected consumers should also be 
small. Thus, there will not be any significant economic impacts on 
affected firms and their consumers as a result of this final action.

D. What are the benefits?

    As explained in the air quality impacts section, we are finalizing 
new emission standards for equipment leaks and PCCT in the PET 
continuous TPA high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory 
regulated by the P&R IV MACT standards at the MACT floor emissions 
levels currently achieved by the one facility in this subcategory. As a 
result, no additional emission reductions from equipment leaks and PCCT 
in this subcategory will be realized, although increases in emissions 
in the future will be prevented. For the final revisions to the PAI, 
PEPO and P&R IV MACT standards regarding SSM and PRDs, these changes 
will result in fewer emissions during SSM periods and PRD releases or 
less frequent SSM periods or PRD releases. However, the emission 
reductions, while tangible, are difficult to quantify and are not 
included in our assessment of health benefits. As a result, there are 
no quantifiable emission reductions associated with the final 
amendments for these three MACT standards and, therefore, there are no 
quantifiable health benefits to associate with reduced emissions. While 
we are unable to quantify these emission reductions, as a result of 
this rulemaking we expect reductions in the actual and potential cancer 
risks and non-cancer health effects due to emissions of HAP from these 
source categories.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them. The information requirements in 
this rulemaking are based on the notification, recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to 
national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The OMB previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations being amended with this final 
rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJ, MMM and PPP) under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The 
OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 
40 CFR part 9. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    For these final rules, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to the 
estimates of burden in the ICR for these rules. To provide the public 
with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated 
with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a 
source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to 
show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. 
The EPA's estimate for the required notification, reports and records 
for any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals 
$1,584 annually per MACT standard, and is based on the time and effort 
required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees 
and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 
exceedance of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to 
produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. 
The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because 
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a 
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis for 
this estimate, as source owners or operators previously operated their 
facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to 
comply with emission standards during malfunctions. Even if the 
historical records were an appropriate basis for this estimate, they 
would still lead us to believe that the number of instances in which 
source operators might avail themselves of the affirmative defense will 
be extremely small. The records indicate that only a small number of 
excess emissions events reported by source operators would be expected 
to result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and that 
only a subset of excess emissions events caused by malfunctions would 
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative

[[Page 17361]]

defense, resulting in no more than an estimated 1 or 2 such occurrences 
for all sources subject to subparts JJJ, MMM and PPP over the 3-year 
period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such 
events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 
information becomes available.
1. Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT Standards
    For the Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT standards, an ICR 
document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the standards has 
been assigned EPA ICR number 2457.02. Burden changes associated with 
these amendments result from new recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with the cooling towers and equipment leak 
provisions for one facility, and PRD monitoring systems and affirmative 
defense provisions for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 31 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart JJJ. The annual monitoring, reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments 
to subpart JJJ is estimated to be 459 labor hours at a cost of $26,000 
per year. The initial capital costs per facility (based on PRD 
monitoring system costs) range from $13,000 to $112,000. The annualized 
capital costs per facility range between $1,800 to $16,000 based on a 
10-year equipment lifespan. There is no estimated change in annual 
burden to the federal government for these amendments.
2. Pesticide Active Ingredient Production MACT Standards
    For the Pesticide Active Ingredient Production MACT standards, an 
ICR document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the standards 
has been assigned EPA ICR number 1807.07. Burden changes associated 
with these amendments result from new recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with PRD monitoring systems and affirmative 
defense provisions for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 18 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart MMM. The annual monitoring, reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments 
to subpart MMM is estimated to be 229 labor hours at a cost of $20,000 
per year. The initial capital costs per facility (based on PRD 
monitoring system costs) range from $12,700 to $82,000. The annualized 
capital costs per facility range from $1,800 to $11,700 based on a 10-
year equipment lifespan. There is no estimated change in annual burden 
to the federal government for these amendments.
3. Polyether Polyols Production MACT Standards
    For the Polyether Polyols Production MACT standards, an ICR 
document prepared by the EPA for the amendments to the standards has 
been assigned EPA ICR number 1811.09. Burden changes associated with 
these amendments result from new recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements associated with PRD monitoring systems and affirmative 
defense provisions for all facilities subject to the MACT standards.
    We estimate 23 regulated facilities are currently subject to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart PPP. The annual monitoring, reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 
years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments 
to subpart PPP is estimated to be 292 labor hours at a cost of $18,000 
per year. The initial capital costs per facility (based on PRD 
monitoring system costs) range from $29,000 to $69,000. The annualized 
capital costs per facility range from $4,100 to $9,800 based on a 10-
year equipment lifespan. There is no estimated change in annual burden 
to the federal government for these amendments.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICR 
are approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 
40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
numbers for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. According to the SBA small business 
standards definitions, for the Group IV Polymers and Resins source 
categories, which have the NAICS code of 325211 (i.e., Plastics 
Material and Resin Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard 
is 750 employees. For the PEPO source category, which has the NAICS 
code of 325199 (i.e., All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing), 
the SBA small business size standard is 1,000 employees. For the PAI 
source category, which has the NAICS codes of 325199 (i.e., All Other 
Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing) and 325320 (i.e., Pesticide and 
Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing), the SBA small business size 
standards are 1,000 employees and 500 employees, respectively.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no 
affected small businesses in any source category affected by the final 
rule. Virtually all of the companies affected by this rule are large 
integrated corporations that are not considered to be small entities 
per the definitions provided in this section.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities that 
could potentially be impacted by this rule in the future. The final 
requirements for PRD monitoring have been revised to provide facilities 
with greater flexibility based on their current equipment and 
operations. In addition, the final malfunction recordkeeping 
requirement was designed to provide all affected facilities, including 
small entities, with a means of supporting an affirmative defense in 
the event of a violation occurring during a malfunction.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local

[[Page 17362]]

or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 
one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are 
owned or operated by state governments, and the requirements discussed 
in today's notice will not supersede state regulations that are more 
stringent. The burden to the respondents and the states is 
approximately $977,000 for the three MACT standards addressed in this 
final rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have 
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA solicited 
comments on this action from tribal officials, but received none.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined 
in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. This action will not relax the 
control measures on existing regulated sources, and EPA's risk 
assessments (included in the docket for this action) demonstrate that 
the existing regulations are health protective.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs 
the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency 
decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has elected to 
use ASTM D2908-74 or 91 and ASTM D3370-76 or 95a for the PCCT at the 
one Group IV Polymers and Resins facility in the PET continuous TPA 
high viscosity multiple end finisher subcategory. No applicable VCS 
were identified for these methods.
    Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the 
General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or 
procedures in the final rule.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. To examine the potential for any environmental 
justice issues that might be associated with the level of the standards 
for each source category, we performed a comparative analysis of the 
demographics of the population within the vicinity of the facilities in 
these source categories (i.e., within a 3-mile radius) and the national 
average demographic distributions. Our analysis shows that most 
demographic categories are within 2 percentage points of national 
averages, except for the African American population, which exceeds the 
national average by 6 percentage points (18 percent versus 12 percent). 
The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by emissions 
from these source categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental 
effects.

K. Congressional Review Act

    U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that, before a 
rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a 
rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the 
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 
will submit a report containing this final rule and other required 
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). The final rules will be effective on March 27, 2014.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

[[Page 17363]]

    Dated: January 31, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is amending Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (g)(28) and (29);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(30) through (84) as (g)(40) to (94); 
and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (g)(28) through (39).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (28) ASTM D2908-74, Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile 
Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography, 
Approved June 27, 1974, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1329(c).
    (29) ASTM D2908-91, Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile 
Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography, 
Approved December 15, 1991, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1329(c).
    (30) ASTM D2908-91(Reapproved 2001), Standard Practice for 
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas 
Chromatography, Approved December 15, 1991, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
    (31) ASTM D2908-91(Reapproved 2005), Standard Practice for 
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas 
Chromatography, Approved December 1, 2005, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
    (32) ASTM D2908-91(Reapproved 2011), Standard Practice for 
Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water by Aqueous-Injection Gas 
Chromatography, Approved May 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
    (33) ASTM D3173-03 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for 
Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke, (Approved February 1, 
2008), IBR approved for table 6 to subpart DDDDD and table 5 to subpart 
JJJJJJ.
    (34) ASTM D3257-93, Standard Test Methods for Aromatics in Mineral 
Spirits by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec.  63.786(b).
    (35) ASTM D3370-76, Standard Practices for Sampling Water, Approved 
August 27, 1976, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1329(c).
    (36) ASTM D3370-95a, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from 
Closed Conduits, Approved September 10, 1995, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
    (37) ASTM D3370-07, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from 
Closed Conduits, Approved December 1, 2007, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
    (38) ASTM D3370-08, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from 
Closed Conduits, Approved October 1, 2008, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
    (39) ASTM D3370-10, Standard Practices for Sampling Water from 
Closed Conduits, Approved December 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1329(c).
* * * * *

Subpart JJJ--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.1310 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) introductory text, (a)(4)(iv), and 
(a)(4)(vi);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (j); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1310  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Emission points and equipment. The affected source also 
includes the emission points and components specified in paragraphs 
(a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section that are associated with each 
applicable group of one or more TPPU constituting an affected source.
* * * * *
    (iv) Each process contact cooling tower used in the manufacture of 
poly (ethylene terephthalate) resin (PET) that is associated with a new 
affected source.
* * * * *
    (vi) Components required by, or utilized as a method of compliance 
with, this subpart, which may include control devices and recovery 
devices.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Components and equipment that do not contain organic HAP and 
are located within a TPPU that is part of an affected source;
* * * * *
    (d) Processes excluded from the affected source. The processes 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section are not part 
of the affected source and are not subject to the requirements of both 
this subpart and subpart A of this part:
* * * * *
    (j) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set 
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this 
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation 
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
    (2) The emission limitations set forth in subpart H of this part, 
as referred to in Sec.  63.1331, shall apply at all times except during 
periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific portion 
thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized, resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which Sec.  63.1331 applies.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment 
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during 
times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or 
residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment, if the shutdown 
would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items 
of equipment.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate 
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (k) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during 
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set 
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative 
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards 
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their 
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. 
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.

[[Page 17364]]

    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator 
must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (k)(2) of this 
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment 
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose 
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event 
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were 
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. This 
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic 
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report 
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the 
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging 
period). If such compliance report, deviation report, or excess 
emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence 
of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the 
second compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report 
due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 
standard.

0
4. Section 63.1311 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(6); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(7).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1311  Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to 
existing applicable rules.

* * * * *
    (b) New affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after March 29, 1995 shall be in compliance with this 
subpart (except Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) upon initial start-up or by 
June 19, 2000, whichever is later, except that new affected sources 
whose primary product, as determined using the procedures specified in 
Sec.  63.1310(f), is PET shall be in compliance with Sec.  63.1331 
(except Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) upon initial start-up or August 6, 
2002, whichever is later. New affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after March 25, 1995, but on or before 
January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance with the pressure relief device 
monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii) no later than March 
27, 2017. New affected sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance with the 
pressure relief device monitoring requirements of Sec.  
63.1331(a)(9)(iii) upon initial startup or by March 27, 2014, whichever 
is later.
    (c) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this 
subpart (except for Sec.  63.1331 for which compliance is covered by 
paragraph (d) of this section) no later than June 19, 2001, as provided 
in Sec.  63.6(c), unless an extension has been granted as specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section, except that the compliance date for the 
provisions contained in Sec.  63.1329 is extended to March 27, 2014, 
for existing affected sources whose primary product, as determined 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1310(f), is PET using a 
continuous terephthalic acid high viscosity multiple end finisher 
process.
    (d) Except as provided for in paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this 
section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with Sec.  
63.1331 no later than June 19, 2001, unless an extension has been 
granted pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section, 
existing affected sources whose primary product, as determined using 
the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1310(f), is PET shall be in 
compliance with Sec.  63.1331 (except Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii)) no 
later than August 6, 2002.
    (7) Compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring 
provisions of Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii) shall occur no later than March 
27, 2017.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1312 is amended by:
0
a. Adding, alphabetically, the term ``Pressure relief device or valve 
(Sec.  63.161)'' and removing the term ``Start-up, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (Sec.  63.101)'' in paragraph (a); and
0
b. Adding the definition for ``Affirmative defense'' in alphabetical 
order in paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1312  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.1315 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(19); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1315  Continuous process vents provisions.

    (a) For each continuous process vent located at an affected source, 
the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
63.113 through 63.118, with the differences noted in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (19) of this section for the purposes of this subpart,

[[Page 17365]]

except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (19) During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.116, an owner or operator of 
an affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit 
expressed as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance 
with the limit in accordance with paragraph (a)(19)(i), (ii), or (iii) 
of this section.
    (i) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (ii) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or 
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent 
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero 
according to Sec.  63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (iii) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of 
the control device used to comply with the emission limit in Sec.  
63.113(a)(1) or (2) were maintained at the level established to meet 
the emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Not allow organic HAP emissions from the collection of 
continuous process vents at the affected source to be greater than 
0.000590 kg organic HAP/Mg of product. Compliance with this paragraph 
(b)(2) shall be determined using the procedures specified in Sec.  
63.1333(b). During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1333(b), an owner or 
operator of an affected source or emission unit subject to an emission 
limit expressed as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate 
compliance with the limit in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), 
or (iii) of this section.
    (i) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (ii) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or 
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent 
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero 
according to Sec.  63.1333(b). Keep records of this calculation.
    (iii) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of 
the control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section were maintained at the level established to meet 
the emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1316 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A), 
(b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(ii)(A), and (c)(1)(i) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1316  PET and polystyrene affected sources--emissions control 
provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each 
individual material recovery section shall, as a whole, be no greater 
than 0.018 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated 
TPPU(s)); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous 
process vents in the collection of material recovery sections within 
the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.018 kg 
organic HAP per Mg product from all associated TPPU. During periods of 
startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an affected 
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed as mass 
emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the limit in 
accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown 
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test 
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.  
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the 
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(1)(i)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established 
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each 
individual polymerization reaction section (including emissions from 
any equipment used to further recover ethylene glycol, but excluding 
emissions from process contact cooling towers) shall, as a whole, be no 
greater than 0.02 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated 
TPPU(s); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous 
process vents in the collection of polymerization reaction sections 
within the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.02 
kg organic HAP per Mg product from all associated TPPU(s). During 
periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an 
affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed 
as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the 
limit in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown 
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test 
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.  
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the 
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established 
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents 
associated with the esterification vessels in each individual raw 
materials preparation section shall, as a whole, be no greater than 
0.04 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated TPPU(s); or 
alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents 
associated with the esterification vessels in the collection of raw 
material preparation sections within the affected source shall, as a 
whole, be no greater than 0.04 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from 
all associated TPPU(s). Other continuous process vents (i.e., those not 
associated with the esterification vessels) in the collection of raw 
materials preparation sections within the affected source shall comply 
with Sec.  63.1315. During periods of startup or shutdown, as an 
alternative to using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), 
an owner or operator of an affected source or emission unit subject to 
an emission limit expressed as mass emissions per mass product may 
demonstrate compliance with the limit in accordance with paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown 
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test 
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.  
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.

[[Page 17366]]

    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the 
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established 
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each 
individual polymerization reaction section (including emissions from 
any equipment used to further recover ethylene glycol, but excluding 
emissions from process contact cooling towers) shall, as a whole, be no 
greater than 0.02 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated 
TPPU(s); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous 
process vents in the collection of polymerization reaction sections 
within the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.02 
kg organic HAP per Mg of product from all associated TPPU(s). During 
periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an 
affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed 
as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the 
limit in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of 
this section.
    (1) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (2) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown 
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test 
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.  
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (3) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the 
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section were maintained at the level established 
to meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Organic HAP emissions from all continuous process vents in each 
individual material recovery section shall, as a whole, be no greater 
than 0.0036 kg organic HAP per Mg of product from the associated 
TPPU(s); or alternatively, organic HAP emissions from all continuous 
process vents in the collection of material recovery sections within 
the affected source shall, as a whole, be no greater than 0.0036 kg 
organic HAP per Mg of product from all associated TPPU(s). During 
periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1318(b)(1), an owner or operator of an 
affected source or emission unit subject to an emission limit expressed 
as mass emissions per mass product may demonstrate compliance with the 
limit in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this 
section.
    (A) Keep records establishing that the raw material introduced and 
product discharged rates were both zero.
    (B) Divide the organic HAP emission rate during startup or shutdown 
by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent performance test 
associated with a production rate greater than zero according to Sec.  
63.1318(b)(1). Keep records of this calculation.
    (C) Keep records establishing that the operating parameters of the 
control device used to comply with the emission limit in paragraph 
(c)(1)(i) of this section were maintained at the level established to 
meet the emission limit at maximum representative operating conditions.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.1318 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a sentence after the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1) 
introductory text and before Equation 1; and
0
b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (c).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1318  PET and polystyrene affected sources--testing and 
compliance demonstration provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative 
to using Equation 1 of this subpart, the owner or operator may divide 
the emission rate of total organic HAP or TOC during startup or 
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent 
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero to 
determine compliance with the emission limit. * * *
* * * * *
    (c) Compliance with mass emissions per mass product standards. * * 
* During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative to using the 
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or 
operator may divide the emission rate of total organic HAP or TOC 
during startup or shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the 
most recent performance test associated with a production rate greater 
than zero to comply with the emission limit.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1319 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (c) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1319  PET and polystyrene affected sources--recordkeeping 
provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) Records demonstrating compliance with temperature limits for 
final condensers. * * *
0
10. Section 63.1324 is amended by revising the second sentence of 
paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1324  Batch process vents--monitoring equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * * The plan shall require determination of gas stream flow 
by a method which will at least provide a value for either a 
representative or the highest gas stream flow anticipated in the 
scrubber during representative operating conditions other than 
malfunctions. * * *

0
11. Section 63.1329 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (c) introductory text; and adding paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and 
(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1329  Process contact cooling towers provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) Existing affected source requirements. The owner or operator of 
an existing affected source subject to this section who manufactures 
PET using a continuous terephthalic acid high viscosity multiple end 
finisher process and who is subject or becomes subject to 40 CFR part 
60, subpart DDD, shall maintain an ethylene glycol concentration in the 
process contact cooling tower at or below 6.0 percent by weight 
averaged on a daily basis over a rolling 14-day period of operating 
days. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1) requires the use of ASTM D2908-74 or 
91, ``Standard Practice for Measuring Volatile Organic Matter in Water 
by Aqueous-Injection Gas Chromatography,'' ASTM D2908-91 (2011), D2908-
91 (2005), D2908-91 (2001), D2908-91, or D2908-74 (all standards 
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) may be used.
    (ii) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1)(i) requires the use of ASTM D3370-76 
or 95a, ``Standard Practices for Sampling

[[Page 17367]]

Water from Closed Conduits,'' ASTM D3370-10, D3370-08, D3370-07, D3370-
95a, or D3370-76 (all standards incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
63.14) may be used.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.1331 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(9); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1331  Equipment leak provisions.

    (a) Except Sec.  63.165 and as provided for in paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section, the owner or operator of each affected source 
shall comply with the requirements of subpart H of this part, with the 
differences noted in paragraphs (a)(1) through (13) of this section.
* * * * *
    (9) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as specified 
in paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must 
comply with the operating and pressure release requirements specified 
in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) and (ii) of this section for pressure relief 
devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Except as specified in 
paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must also 
comply with the pressure release management requirements specified in 
paragraph (a)(9)(iii) of this section for all pressure relief devices 
in organic HAP service.
    (i) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event, 
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as 
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in 
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(A) 
or (B) of this section, as applicable.
    (A) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the 
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, 
except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (B) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture 
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a 
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure 
release, except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (iii) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph 
(a)(9)(iv) of this section, pressure releases to the atmosphere from 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the 
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (a)(9)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for all pressure 
relief devices in organic HAP service.
    (A) For each pressure relief device in organic HAP service, the 
owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device with a 
device(s) or use a monitoring system that is capable of:
    (1) Identifying the pressure release;
    (2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is 
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to 
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process 
system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the 
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but 
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure 
monitor.
    (B) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases 
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or 
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during 
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in 
Sec.  63.1335(e)(6)(xiii). Calculations may be based on data from the 
pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process 
parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (iv) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process, 
or drain system. If a pressure relief device in organic HAP service is 
designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed 
vent system to a control device, process, or drain system, the owner or 
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (a)(9)(i), (ii), or 
(iii) (if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and 
control device (if applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.172. The drain system (if applicable) must meet the requirements of 
Sec.  63.136.
* * * * *
    (c)(1) Each affected source producing PET using a continuous TPA 
high viscosity multiple end finisher process shall monitor for leaks 
upon startup following an outage where changes have been made to 
equipment in gas/vapor or light liquid service. This leak check shall 
consist of the introduction of hot ethylene glycol vapors into the 
system for a period of no less than 2 hours during which time sensory 
monitoring of the equipment shall be conducted.
    (2) A leak is determined to be detected if there is evidence of a 
potential leak found by visual, audible, or olfactory means.
    (3) When a leak is detected, it shall be repaired as soon as 
practical, but not later than 15 days after it is detected, except as 
provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (i) The first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 5 days 
after each leak is detected.
    (ii) Repaired shall mean that the visual, audible, olfactory or 
other indications of a leak have been eliminated; that no bubbles are 
observed at potential leak sites during a leak check using soap 
solution; or that the system will hold a test pressure.
    (4) When a leak is detected, the following information shall be 
recorded and kept for 2 years and reported in the next periodic report:
    (i) The instrument and the equipment identification number and the 
operator name, initials or identification number.
    (ii) The date the leak was detected and the date of first attempt 
to repair the leak.
    (iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.

0
13. Section 63.1332 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1332  Emissions averaging provisions.

* * * * *
    (f) Debits and credits shall be calculated in accordance with the 
methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 
section, respectively, and shall not include emissions during periods 
of monitoring excursions, as defined in Sec.  63.1334(f). For these 
periods, the calculation of monthly credits and debits shall be 
adjusted as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) No credits would be assigned to the credit-generating emission 
point.
    (2) Maximum debits would be assigned to the debit-generating 
emission point.
    (3) The owner or operator may demonstrate to the Administrator that 
full or partial credits or debits should be assigned using the 
procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 63.1333 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) introductory 
text; and
0
b. Adding a sentence after the third sentence of paragraph (b) 
introductory text and before Equation 49.

[[Page 17368]]

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1333  Additional requirements for performance testing.

    (a) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested and in accordance with Sec.  63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), (e)(2), 
(e)(4), (g), and (h), with the exceptions specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (5) of this section and the additions specified in 
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. Representative conditions 
exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the 
Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not 
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or 
operator must record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests. Sections 63.1314 through 63.1330 also 
contain specific testing requirements.
    (1) Performance tests shall be conducted according to the 
provisions of Sec.  63.7(e)(2), except that performance tests shall be 
conducted at maximum representative operating conditions achievable 
during one of the time periods described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section, without causing any of the situations described in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section to occur.
* * * * *
    (b) * * * During periods of startup or shutdown, as an alternative 
to using Equation 49 of this subpart, the owner or operator may divide 
the emission rate of total organic HAP or TOC during startup or 
shutdown by the rate of polymer produced from the most recent 
performance test associated with a production rate greater than zero to 
comply with the emission limit. * * *

0
15. Section 63.1334 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(1) introductory text and 
paragraph (f)(1)(v);
0
b. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(2) introductory text and 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B);
0
c. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(3) introductory text and 
the last sentence of paragraph (f)(3)(i) introductory text;
0
d. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6);
0
f. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (f)(7); and
0
g. Removing paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1334  Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (v) The periods listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(v)(A) and (B) of this 
section are not considered to be part of the period of control or 
recovery device operation, for the purposes of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) 
and (iii) of this section.
    (A) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (B) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
    (2) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Subtract the time during the periods of monitoring system 
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments from the total amount of time determined in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain the operating time used to 
determine if monitoring data are insufficient.
* * * * *
    (3) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
    (i) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
    (5) With respect to continuous process vents complying with the 
temperature limits for final condensers specified in Sec.  
63.1316(b)(1)(i)(B) or (c)(1)(ii), an excursion has occurred when the 
daily average exit temperature exceeds the appropriate condenser 
temperature limit. For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be 
deemed out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The 
periods listed in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section are not 
considered to be part of the period of operation for the condenser for 
purposes of determining the daily average exit temperature.
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
    (6) With respect to new affected sources producing SAN using a 
batch process, an excursion has occurred when the percent reduction 
calculated using the procedures specified in Sec.  63.1333(c) is less 
than 84 percent. For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be 
deemed out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The 
periods listed in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section are not 
considered to be part of the period of control or recovery device 
operation for purposes of determining the percent reduction.
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
    (7) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart.

0
16. Section 63.1335 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
c. Revising the paragraph (d)(7);
0
d. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
0
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
f. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(3) introductory text;
0
g. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(3)(i);
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(v);
0
i. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(viii);
0
j. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B);
0
k. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(5) introductory text;
0
l. Adding paragraph (e)(5)(xii);
0
m. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (e)(6) introductory 
text;
0
n. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(B);
0
o. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(E), (e)(6)(xii)(A)(1), and 
(e)(6)(xii)(D);
0
p. Adding paragraphs (e)(6)(xiii) and (e)(9);

[[Page 17369]]

0
q. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(i);
0
r. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
s. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(iii); and
0
t. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1335  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Malfunction recordkeeping and reporting. (i) Records of 
malfunctions. The owner or operator shall keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (B) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (C) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1310(j)(4), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (ii) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an 
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report 
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each 
instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure. For each 
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (d) Recordkeeping and documentation. Owners or operators required 
to keep continuous records shall keep records as specified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this section, unless an alternative 
recordkeeping system has been requested and approved as specified in 
paragraph (g) of this section, and except as provided in paragraph (h) 
of this section. If a monitoring plan for storage vessels pursuant to 
Sec.  63.1314(a)(9) requires continuous records, the monitoring plan 
shall specify which provisions, if any, of paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(10) of this section apply. * * *
    (7) Monitoring data recorded during periods identified in 
paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section shall not be included in 
any average computed under this subpart. Records shall be kept of the 
times and durations of all such periods and any other periods during 
process or control device or recovery device operation when monitors 
are not operating.
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
* * * * *
    (10) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, keep 
records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(10)(i) through 
(v) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
that the owner or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system 
and control device, subject to the provisions in Sec.  
63.1331(a)(9)(iv).
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(i).
    (iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions in Sec.  
63.1331(a)(9)(ii)(B).
    (iv) The dates and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release for each pressure 
relief device subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(i) and 
(ii). The results shall include:
    (A) The background level measured during each compliance test.
    (B) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of 
equipment during each compliance test.
    (v) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii), keep records of each pressure release to the 
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (C) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release 
and the calculations used for determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (e) Reporting and notification. In addition to the reports and 
notifications required by subpart A of this part as specified in Table 
1 of this subpart, the owner or operator of an affected source shall 
prepare and submit the reports listed in paragraphs (e)(3) through (9) 
of this section, as applicable. * * *
    (3) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources 
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use 
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring 
and recordkeeping or alternative controls; requesting approval to use 
engineering assessment to estimate emissions from a batch emissions 
episode, as described in Sec.  63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or wishing to 
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures 
contained in Sec.  63.1334(c) or (d), shall submit a Precompliance 
Report according to the schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of 
this section. * * *
    (i) Submittal dates. * * * To submit a Precompliance Report for the 
first time after the compliance date to request an extension for 
compliance; request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, 
alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping or alternative 
controls; request approval to use engineering assessment to estimate 
emissions from a batch emissions episode, as described in Sec.  
63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or to request to establish parameter monitoring 
levels according to the procedures contained in Sec.  63.1334(c) or 
(d), the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator at least 90 
days before the planned change is to be implemented; the change shall 
be considered approved if the Administrator either approves the change 
in writing, or fails to disapprove the change in writing within 45 days 
of receipt.
* * * * *
    (v) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use 
alternative emission standards to comply with the provisions of this 
subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem 
alternative emission standards to be equivalent to the standard 
required by the subpart, under the procedures outlined in Sec.  
63.6(g).
* * * * *
    (ix) * * *
    (B) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to 
request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified 
in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section; to use alternative continuous 
monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of 
this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph 
(e)(3)(v) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate 
emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph

[[Page 17370]]

(e)(3)(vi) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels 
according to the procedures contained in Sec.  63.1334(c) or (d), as 
specified in paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) Notification of Compliance Status. * * * For pressure relief 
devices subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii), the 
owner or operator shall submit the information listed in paragraph 
(e)(5)(xii) of this section in the Notification of Compliance Status 
within 150 days after the first applicable compliance date for pressure 
relief device monitoring.
* * * * *
    (xii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a 
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented, 
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be 
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods 
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a 
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information 
to be recorded under paragraphs (d)(10)(v)(B) and (C) of this section 
(i.e., the duration of the pressure release and the methodology and 
calculations for determining of the quantity of total HAP emitted 
during the pressure release).
    (6) Periodic Reports. For existing and new affected sources, the 
owner or operator shall submit Periodic Reports as specified in 
paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (xiii) of this section. In addition, for 
equipment leaks subject to Sec.  63.1331, with the exception of Sec.  
63.1331(c), the owner or operator shall submit the information 
specified in Sec.  63.182(d) under the conditions listed in Sec.  
63.182(d), and for heat exchange systems subject to Sec.  63.1328, the 
owner or operator shall submit the information specified in Sec.  
63.104(f)(2) as part of the Periodic Report required by this paragraph 
(e)(6). * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) The daily average values or batch cycle daily average values of 
monitored parameters for unexcused excursions, as defined in Sec.  
63.1334(f). * * *
    (E) The information in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for 
reports of malfunctions.
* * * * *
    (xii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) A control or recovery device for a particular emission point or 
process section has one or more excursions, as defined in Sec.  
63.1334(f), in two consecutive semiannual reporting periods; or
* * * * *
    (D) After quarterly reports have been submitted for an emission 
point for 1 year without one or more excursions occurring (during that 
year), the owner or operator may return to semiannual reporting for the 
emission point or process section.
    (xiii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, Periodic 
Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(e)(6)(xiii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
Sec.  63.1331(a)(9), report confirmation that all monitoring to show 
compliance was conducted within the reporting period.
    (B) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service 
subject to Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(ii), report any instrument reading of 
500 ppm above background or greater, more than 5 calendar days after 
the pressure release.
    (C) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
Sec.  63.1331(a)(9)(iii), report each pressure release to the 
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (3) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release 
and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (4) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (5) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
* * * * *
    (9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner 
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including 
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the 
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(9)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of 
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer 
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise 
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some 
of the information being submitted for performance tests is 
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file 
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI 
on a compact disk, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked 
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The 
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (ii) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are 
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator 
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator 
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or 
impossible data during periods of operation (e.g., a temperature 
reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler), and will alert the operator by 
alarm or other means. * * *
    (ii) The monitoring system generates, updated at least hourly 
throughout each operating day, a running average of the monitoring 
values that have been obtained during that operating day, and the 
capability to observe this running average is readily available to the 
Administrator on-site during the operating day. The owner or operator 
shall record the occurrence of any period meeting the criteria in 
paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. All instances in an 
operating day constitute a single occurrence.
    (A) The running average is above the maximum or below the minimum 
established limits; and
    (B) The running average is based on at least six 1-hour average 
values.
    (iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data 
during periods of operation, except in circumstances where the presence 
of unchanging data is the expected operating condition based on past 
experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), and will alert the operator by 
alarm or other means. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The owner or operator shall retain the records specified in 
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, for the duration 
specified in this paragraph (h). For any calendar week, if compliance 
with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not result 
in retention of a record of at least one occurrence or measured 
parameter value, the owner or operator shall record and retain at least 
one parameter value during a period of operation.
    (iv) For purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, an excursion 
means that

[[Page 17371]]

the daily average (or batch cycle daily average) value of monitoring 
data for a parameter is greater than the maximum, or less than the 
minimum established value.

0
17. Table 1 to Subpart JJJ of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8) and Sec.  63.1(a)(9);
0
b. Adding entries Sec.  63.1(a)(6) and Sec.  63.1(a)(7)-(9);
0
c. Revising entries Sec.  63.1(c)(4), Sec.  63.6(e), Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(i), and Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii);
0
d. Adding entry Sec.  63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Removing entries Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(i), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), Sec.  
63.6(e)(3)(i)(B), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(i)(C), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ii), Sec.  
63.6(e)(3)(iii), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iv), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(v), Sec.  
63.6(e)(3)(vi), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii)(A), Sec.  
63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(vii)(C), Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(viii), 
and Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(ix);
0
f. Revising entries Sec.  63.6(f)(1), Sec.  63.7(e)(1), Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(i), Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(ii), and Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(iii);
0
g. Adding entry Sec.  63.10(d)(5);
0
h. Removing entries Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i) and Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii); and
0
i. Removing footnote (a).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart JJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
                     to Subpart JJJ Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               Subpart JJJ          Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.1(a)(6).............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(9).........  No...............  [Reserved.].
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.1(c)(4).............  No...............  [Reserved.].
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)................  Yes..............  Except as otherwise
                                                    specified for
                                                    individual
                                                    paragraphs.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1310(j)(4) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  No...............  .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1333(a).
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  No...............  .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1335(b)(1)(ii)
                                                    for malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart MMM--[Amended]

0
18. Section 63.1360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e) heading, (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(3), 
and (e)(4); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1360  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) Applicability of this subpart. (1) Each provision set forth in 
this subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of non-
operation of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) 
resulting in cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
* * * * *
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment 
that are required or utilized for compliance with the emissions 
limitations of this subpart during times when emissions (or, where 
applicable, wastewater streams or residuals) are being routed to such 
items of equipment, if the shutdown would contravene emissions 
limitations of this subpart applicable to such items of equipment.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate 
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
* * * * *
    (k) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during 
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set 
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative 
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards 
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their 
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. 
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 
defense in

[[Page 17372]]

any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator must 
timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (k)(2) of this 
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment 
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose 
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event 
at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were 
the result of the malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. This 
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic 
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report 
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the 
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging 
period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report 
is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, 
the affirmative defense report may be included in the second 
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the 
initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.

0
19. Section 63.1361 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Affirmative 
defense'';
0
b. In the definition of ``Group 1 process vent'' by removing the word 
``hydogen'' and adding in its place the word ``hydrogen''; and
0
c. Revising the definition for ``Pesticide active ingredient or PAI''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1361  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Pesticide active ingredient or PAI means any material that is an 
active ingredient within the meaning of FIFRA section 2(a); that is 
used to produce an insecticide, herbicide, or fungicide end use 
pesticide product; that consists of one or more organic compounds; and 
that must be labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part 156 for transfer, 
sale, or distribution. These materials are typically described by North 
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes 325199 and 
32532 (i.e., previously known as Standard Industrial Classification 
System Codes 2869 and 2879). These materials are identified by product 
classification codes 01, 21, 02, 04, 44, 07, 08, and 16 in block 19 on 
the 1999 version of EPA form 3540-16, the Pesticides Report for 
Pesticide-Producing Establishments. The materials represented by these 
codes are: insecticides; insecticide-fungicides; fungicides; 
herbicides; herbicide-fungicides; plant regulators; defoliants, 
desiccants; or multi-use active ingredients.
* * * * *
0
20. Section 63.1362 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1362  Standards.

* * * * *
    (i) Opening of a safety device. The owner or operator that opens a 
safety device, as defined in Sec.  63.1361, is not exempt from 
applicable standards in order to avoid unsafe conditions. If opening a 
safety device results in the failure to meet any applicable standard, 
the owner or operator must still comply with the general duty to 
minimize emissions. If opening a safety device results in a deviation 
or excess emissions, such events must be reported as specified in Sec.  
63.1368(i). If the owner or operator attributes the event to a 
malfunction and intends to assert an affirmative defense, the owner or 
operator is subject to Sec.  63.1360(k).
* * * * *

0
21. Section 63.1363 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(A), (g)(2)(iii)(A), and 
(g)(2)(iii)(B);
0
e. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A);
0
f. Revising paragraph (g)(6) introductory text;
0
g. Adding paragraph (g)(11);
0
h. Adding a sentence after the first sentence of paragraph (h)(2) 
introductory text;
0
i. Adding paragraph (h)(2)(iv);
0
j. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(3)(i);
0
k. Revising paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(J); and
0
l. Adding paragraph (h)(3)(v).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1363  Standards for equipment leaks.

* * * * *
    (b) References. The owner or operator shall comply with the 
provisions of subpart H of this part as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section and with paragraph (b)(4) of this section 
for pressure relief devices. * * *
    (2) The owner or operator shall comply with Sec. Sec.  63.164, 
63.166, 63.169, 63.177, and 63.179 of subpart H of this part in their 
entirety, except that when these sections reference other sections of 
subpart H of this part, the owner or operator shall comply with the 
revised sections as specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (3), and (4) of 
this section. Section 63.164 of subpart H of this part applies to 
compressors. Section 63.166 of subpart H of this part applies to 
sampling connection systems. Section 63.169 of subpart H of this part 
applies to: pumps, valves, connectors, and agitators in heavy liquid 
service; instrumentation systems; and pressure

[[Page 17373]]

relief devices in liquid service. Section 63.177 of subpart H of this 
subpart applies to general alternative means of emission limitation. 
Section 63.179 of subpart H of this part applies to alternative means 
of emission limitation for enclosed-vented process units.
* * * * *
    (4) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as specified 
in paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must 
comply with the operating and pressure release requirements specified 
in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section for pressure relief 
devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Except as specified in 
paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator must also 
comply with the pressure release management requirements specified in 
paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section for all pressure relief devices 
in organic HAP service.
    (i) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event, 
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as 
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (ii) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in 
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) 
or (B) of this section, as applicable.
    (A) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the 
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, 
except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (B) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture 
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a 
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure 
release, except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (iii) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iv) of this section, pressure releases to the atmosphere from 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the 
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for all pressure 
relief devices in organic HAP service.
    (A) For each pressure relief device in organic HAP service, the 
owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device with a 
device(s) or use a monitoring system that is capable of:
    (1) Identifying the pressure release;
    (2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is 
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to 
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process 
system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the 
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but 
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure 
monitor.
    (B) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases 
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or 
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during 
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in 
paragraph (h)(3)(v) of this section. Calculations may be based on data 
from the pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with 
process parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (iv) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process, 
or drain system. If a pressure relief device in organic HAP service is 
designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed 
vent system to a control device, process, or drain system, the owner or 
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (ii), or 
(iii) (if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and 
control device (if applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.172. The drain system (if applicable) must meet the requirements of 
Sec.  63.136.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A list of identification numbers for equipment that the owner 
or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system and control 
device, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b)(4)(iv) or (c)(7) of 
this section or Sec.  63.164(h).
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
subject to the provisions in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
    (B) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions of paragraph 
(b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * * The written procedures must be maintained at the plant 
site. * * *
    (6) Records of compressor and pressure relief device compliance 
tests. The dates and results of each compliance test required for 
compressors subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.164(i) and the dates 
and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, monitoring 
following a pressure release for each pressure relief device subject to 
the provisions in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. The 
results shall include:
* * * * *
    (11) Records of pressure releases to the atmosphere from pressure 
relief devices. For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service 
subject to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, keep records of each 
pressure release to the atmosphere, including the following 
information:
    (i) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (ii) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (iii) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release 
and the calculations used for determining this quantity.
    (iv) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (v) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (h) * * *
    (2) Notification of compliance status report. * * * For pressure 
relief devices subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of 
this section, the owner or operator shall submit the information listed 
in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section in the Notification of 
Compliance Status within 150 days after the first applicable compliance 
date for pressure relief device monitoring. * * *
    (iv) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a 
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented, 
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be 
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods 
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a 
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information 
to be recorded under paragraphs (g)(11)(ii) and (iii) of this section 
(i.e., the duration of the pressure release and the methodology and 
calculations for determining of the quantity of total HAP emitted 
during the pressure release).
    (3) * * *
    (i) A report containing the information in paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) 
through (v) of this section shall be submitted semiannually. * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (J) The results of all monitoring to show compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  63.164(i) and

[[Page 17374]]

63.172(f) conducted within the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
    (v) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, Periodic 
Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(h)(3)(v)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, report confirmation that all 
monitoring to show compliance was conducted within the reporting 
period.
    (B) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service 
subject to paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, report any instrument 
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater, more than 5 calendar 
days after the pressure release.
    (C) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section, report each pressure release to 
the atmosphere, including the following information:
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (3) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release 
and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (4) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (5) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.

0
22. Section 63.1364 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1364  Compliance dates.

    (a) * * *
    (1) An owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply 
with the provisions in this subpart (except Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii)) 
by December 23, 2003. Compliance with the pressure relief device 
monitoring provisions of Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii) shall occur no later 
than March 27, 2017.
* * * * *
    (b) Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. An owner or 
operator of a new or reconstructed affected source must comply with the 
provisions of this subpart (except Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii)) on June 
23, 1999 or upon startup, whichever is later. New or reconstructed 
affected sources that commenced construction after November 10, 1997, 
but on or before January 9, 2012, must be in compliance with the 
pressure relief device monitoring provisions of Sec.  
63.1363(b)(4)(iii) no later than March 27, 2017. New or reconstructed 
sources that commenced construction after January 9, 2012, must be in 
compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring provisions of 
Sec.  63.1363(b)(4)(iii) upon initial startup or by March 27, 2014, 
whichever is later.

0
23. Section 63.1365 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1365  Test methods and initial compliance procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) Test methods and conditions. When testing is conducted to 
measure emissions from an affected source, the test methods specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this section shall be used. 
Compliance and performance tests shall be performed under such 
conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator 
based on representative performance of the affected source for the 
period being tested and as specified in paragraphs (b)(10) and (11) of 
this section. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable 
subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or 
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 63.1366 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) introductory text; and revising paragraph (b)(8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1366  Monitoring and inspection requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Scrubbers. * * * Alternatively, for halogen scrubbers, the 
owner or operator may comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.994(c).
* * * * *
    (8) Violations. Exceedances of parameters monitored according to 
the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv) through (ix), and 
(b)(5) of this section, or excursions as defined by paragraphs 
(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, constitute violations of the 
operating limit according to paragraphs (b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. Exceedances of the temperature limit monitored according to 
the provisions of paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section or exceedances 
of the outlet concentrations monitored according to the provisions of 
paragraph (b)(1)(x) of this section constitute violations of the 
emission limit according to paragraphs (b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. Exceedances of the outlet concentrations monitored according 
to the provisions of paragraph (b)(5) of this section constitute 
violations of the emission limit according to the provisions of 
paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of this section.
    (i) For episodes occurring more than once per day, exceedances of 
established parameter limits or excursions will result in no more than 
one violation per operating day for each monitored item of equipment 
utilized in the process.
    (ii) For control devices used for more than one process in the 
course of an operating day, exceedances or excursions will result in no 
more than one violation per operating day, per control device, for each 
process for which the control device is in service.
    (iii) Exceedances of the 20 or 50 ppmv TOC outlet emission limit, 
averaged over the operating day, will result in no more than one 
violation per day per control device. Exceedances of the 20 or 50 ppmv 
HCl and chlorine outlet emission limit, averaged over the operating 
day, will result in no more than one violation per day per control 
device.
* * * * *

0
25. Section 63.1367 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (e) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  63.1367  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Records of malfunctions. (i) In the event that an affected unit 
fails to meet an applicable standard, record the number of failures. 
For each failure record the date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1360(e)(4), and any corrective

[[Page 17375]]

actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner 
of operation.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the 
requirements for heat exchanger systems in Sec.  63.1362(g) shall 
retain the records as specified in Sec.  63.104(f)(1)(i) through (iv).
* * * * *

0
26. Section 63.1368 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the seventh sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (i); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (p).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1368  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Precompliance plan. * * * To change any of the information 
submitted in the Precompliance plan or to submit a Precompliance plan 
for the first time after the compliance date, the owner or operator 
shall notify the Administrator at least 90 days before the planned 
change is to be implemented; the change shall be considered approved if 
the Administrator either approves the change in writing, or fails to 
disapprove the change in writing within 90 days of receipt of the 
change. * * *
    (i) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an 
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report 
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each 
instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure. For each 
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (p) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner 
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including 
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the 
methods specified in paragraphs (p)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of 
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer 
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise 
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some 
of the information being submitted for performance tests is 
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file 
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI 
on a compact disk, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked 
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The 
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (2) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are 
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator 
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator 
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.

0
27. Table 1 to Subpart MMM of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(e);
0
b. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(ii), Sec.  
63.6(e)(1)(iii), and Sec.  63.6(e)(3);
0
c. Removing entry Sec.  63.6(f);
0
d. Adding entries Sec.  63.6(f)(1) and Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3);
0
e. Revising entry Sec.  63.7(e)(1);
0
f. Removing entry Sec.  63.8(b)(3)-(c)(3);
0
g. Adding entries Sec.  63.8(b)(3), Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(i), Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(ii), Sec.  63.8(c)(1)(iii), and Sec.  63.8(c)(2)-(3);
0
h. Revising entry Sec.  63.8(d)-(f)(3);
0
i. Removing entry Sec.  63.10(c);
0
j. Adding entries Sec.  63.10(c)(1)-(14) and Sec.  63.10(c)(15); and
0
k. Revising entry Sec.  63.10(d)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

 Table 1 to Subpart MMM of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                               Subpart MMM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
    Reference to subpart A         subpart MMM          Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1360(e)(4) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)           No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)          Yes.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)               No.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)               No.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)           Yes.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1365(b).
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(b)(3)               Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)            No.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)           Yes.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)          No.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)           Yes.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d)-(f)(3).........  Yes..............  Except the last
                                                    sentence of Sec.
                                                    63.8(d)(3), which
                                                    shall be replaced
                                                    with ``The program
                                                    of corrective action
                                                    should be included
                                                    in the plan required
                                                    under Sec.
                                                    63.8(d)(2).'' for
                                                    the purposes of this
                                                    subpart.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(14)         Yes.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)             No.
 

[[Page 17376]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No...............  See Sec.   63.1368(i)
                                                    for malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart PPP--[Amended]

0
28. Section 63.1420 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) and (c)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
d. Revising the heading for paragraph (e)(8);
0
e. Revising paragraph (h); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1420  Applicability and designation of affected sources.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The affected source also includes the emission points and 
components specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (vi) of this 
section that are associated with a PMPU (or a group of PMPUs) making up 
an affected source, as defined in Sec.  63.1423.
* * * * *
    (iv) Components required by or utilized as a method of compliance 
with this subpart, which may include control techniques and recovery 
devices.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Components and equipment that do not contain organic HAP or 
that contain organic HAP as impurities only and are located at a PMPU 
that is part of an affected source.
* * * * *
    (d) Processes excluded from the affected source. The processes 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section are not part 
of the affected source and are not subject to the requirements of both 
this subpart and subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) Requirements for flexible process units that are not PMPUs. * * 
*
    (h) Applicability of this subpart. (1) The emission limitations set 
forth in this subpart and the emission limitations referred to in this 
subpart shall apply at all times except during periods of nonoperation 
of the affected source (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of the emissions to which this subpart applies.
    (2) The emission limitations set forth in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
H, as referred to in the equipment leak provisions in Sec.  63.1434, 
shall apply at all times except during periods of non-operation of the 
affected source (or specific portion thereof) in which the lines are 
drained and depressurized resulting in cessation of the emissions to 
which Sec.  63.1434 applies.
    (3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment 
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during 
times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or 
residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown 
would contravene requirements applicable to such items of equipment.
    (4) General duty. At all times, the owner or operator must operate 
and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the 
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if 
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. 
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with 
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information 
available to the Administrator, which may include, but is not limited 
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, 
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the 
source.
    (i) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during 
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set 
forth in this subpart, the owner or operator may assert an affirmative 
defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards 
that are caused by malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate 
penalties may be assessed if the owner or operator fails to meet their 
burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. 
The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative 
defense in any action to enforce such a standard, the owner or operator 
must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (i)(2) of this 
section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
    (i) The violation:
    (A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 
violation occurred; and
    (iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 
practicable; and
    (iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment 
or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 
personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; 
and
    (vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose 
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 
the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event 
at issue. The analysis

[[Page 17377]]

shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering 
judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the result of the 
malfunction.
    (2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator, with all 
necessary supporting documentation, that explains how it has met the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. This 
affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic 
compliance report, deviation report, or excess emission report 
otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the 
relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging 
period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report 
is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, 
the affirmative defense report may be included in the second 
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the 
initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.

0
29. Section 63.1422 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
c. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(2)(iv);
0
d. Adding paragraph (d)(6); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1422  Compliance dates and relationship of this rule to 
existing applicable rules.

* * * * *
    (b) New affected sources that commence construction or 
reconstruction after September 4, 1997 shall be in compliance with this 
subpart (except Sec.  63.1434(c)(3)) upon initial start-up or by June 
1, 1999, whichever is later. New affected sources that commenced 
construction or reconstruction after September 4, 1997, but on or 
before January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance with the pressure relief 
device monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1434(c)(3) by March 27, 
2017. New affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction 
after January 9, 2012, shall be in compliance with the pressure relief 
device monitoring requirements of Sec.  63.1434(c)(3) upon initial 
startup or by March 27, 2014, whichever is later.
* * * * *
    (d) Except as provided for in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this 
section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with Sec.  
63.1434 no later than December 1, 1999 unless an extension has been 
granted as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * * The request for a compliance extension shall contain the 
information specified in Sec.  63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) and (B). * * *
    (6) Compliance with the pressure relief device monitoring 
provisions of Sec.  63.1434(c)(3) shall occur no later than March 27, 
2017.
    (e) * * *
    (1) A request for an extension of compliance shall include the data 
described in Sec.  63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) and (B).
* * * * *

0
30. Section 63.1423 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the terms ``Relief valve (subpart G)'' and ``Start-up, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (subpart F)'' and adding the terms 
``Pressure release (subpart H)'' and ``Pressure relief device or valve 
(subpart H)'' in paragraph (a); and
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Process vent'' and adding the 
definition for ``Affirmative defense'' in alphabetical order to 
paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1423  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    Process vent means a point of emission from a unit operation having 
a gaseous stream that is discharged to the atmosphere either directly 
or after passing through one or more combustion, recovery, or recapture 
devices. A process vent from a continuous unit operation is a gaseous 
emission stream containing more than 0.005 weight-percent total organic 
HAP. A process vent from a batch unit operation is a gaseous emission 
stream containing more than 225 kilograms per year (500 pounds per 
year) of organic HAP emissions. Unit operations that may have process 
vents are condensers, distillation units, reactors, or other unit 
operations within the PMPU. Process vents exclude pressure relief 
device discharges, gaseous streams routed to a fuel gas system(s), and 
leaks from equipment regulated under Sec.  63.1434. A gaseous emission 
stream is no longer considered to be a process vent after the stream 
has been controlled and monitored in accordance with the applicable 
provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
31. Section 63.1427 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (j)(2) introductory text; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (k)(3)(ii).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1427  Process vent requirements for processes using extended 
cookout as an epoxide emission reduction technique.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator shall maintain the records specified in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Notification of each batch cycle when the time and duration of 
epoxide emissions before the end of the ECO, recorded in accordance 
with paragraph (j)(2)(v) of this section, exceed the time and duration 
of the emission episodes during the initial epoxide emission percentage 
reduction determination, as recorded in paragraph (j)(1)(viii) of this 
section.
* * * * *

0
32. Section 63.1428 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(2)(ii) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  63.1428  Process vent requirements for group determination of 
PMPUs using a nonepoxide organic HAP to make or modify the product.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Where the recalculated TRE index value is less than or equal 
to 1.0, or, where the TRE index value before the process change was 
greater than 4.0 and the recalculated TRE index value is less than or 
equal to 4.0 but greater than 1.0, the owner or operator shall submit a 
report as specified in the process vent reporting and recordkeeping 
provisions in Sec.  63.1430(i) or (j), and shall comply with the 
appropriate provisions in the process vent control requirements in 
Sec.  63.1425 by the dates specified in Sec.  63.1422 (the section 
describing compliance dates for sources subject to this subpart).
* * * * *

0
33. Section 63.1429 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text; and
0
b. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (d)(1).
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 17378]]

Sec.  63.1429  Process vent monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) Monitoring of bypass lines. * * * Equipment such as low leg 
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, 
and pressure relief devices needed for safety purposes are not subject 
to paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) For each parameter monitored under paragraphs (a) or (b) of 
this section, the owner or operator shall establish a level, defined as 
either a maximum or minimum operating parameter as denoted in Table 7 
of this subpart (the table listing the operating parameters for which 
monitoring levels are required to be established for process vent 
streams), that indicates that the combustion, recovery, or recapture 
device is operated in a manner to ensure compliance with the provisions 
of this subpart. The level shall be established in accordance with the 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1438(a) through (d), as applicable. * 
* *

0
34. Section 63.1430 is amended by revising the last sentence of 
paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1430  Process vent reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * * In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of 
non-operation of the process (or specific portion thereof) resulting in 
cessation of organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing 
the daily averages.
* * * * *

0
35. Section 63.1434 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and the last sentence of paragraph (d); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1434  Equipment leak provisions.

    (a) The owner or operator of each affected source shall comply with 
the HON equipment leak requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H for 
all equipment in organic HAP service, except Sec.  63.165 and as 
specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Requirements for pressure relief devices. Except as specified 
in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the owner or operator must comply 
with the operating and pressure release requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for pressure relief devices 
in organic HAP gas or vapor service. Except as specified in paragraph 
(c)(4) of this section, the owner or operator must also comply with the 
pressure release management requirements specified in paragraph (c)(3) 
of this section for all pressure relief devices in organic HAP service.
    (1) Operating requirements. Except during a pressure release event, 
operate each pressure relief device in organic HAP gas or vapor service 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background as 
detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (2) Pressure release requirements. For pressure relief devices in 
organic HAP gas or vapor service, comply with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a 
rupture disk, conduct instrument monitoring, as detected by Method 21 
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5 calendar days after the 
pressure release to verify that the pressure relief device is operating 
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background, 
except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (ii) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a 
rupture disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a 
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure 
release, except as provided in Sec.  63.171.
    (3) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph 
(c)(4) of this section, pressure releases to the atmosphere from 
pressure relief devices in organic HAP service are prohibited, and the 
owner or operator must comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all pressure relief 
devices in organic HAP service.
    (i) For each pressure relief device in organic HAP service, the 
owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device with a 
device(s) or use a monitoring system that is capable of:
    (A) Identifying the pressure release;
    (B) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
    (C) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is 
occurring. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to 
the pressure relief device itself or may be associated with the process 
system or piping, sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the 
atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and systems include, but 
are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 
detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, or pressure 
monitor.
    (ii) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases 
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or 
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during 
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in 
Sec.  63.1439(e)(6)(ix). Calculations may be based on data from the 
pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process 
parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (4) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device, process, or 
drain system. If a pressure relief device in organic HAP service is 
designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed 
vent system to a control device, process, or drain system, the owner or 
operator is not required to comply with paragraphs (c)(1), (2), or (3) 
(if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and 
control device (if applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.172. The drain system (if applicable) must meet the requirements of 
Sec.  63.136.
    (d) * * * The Initial Notification shall be submitted no later than 
June 1, 2000 for existing sources.
* * * * *

0
36. Section 63.1437 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1437  Additional requirements for performance testing.

    (a) Performance testing shall be conducted in accordance with Sec.  
63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), (g), and (h), with the 
exceptions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section 
and the additions specified in paragraph (b) of this section. 
Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the 
Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on 
representative performance of the affected source for the period being 
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and 
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable 
subpart. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during 
periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process 
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during 
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such 
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or 
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as

[[Page 17379]]

may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (1) Performance tests shall be conducted according to the general 
provisions' performance testing requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(2), 
except that for all emission sources except process vents from batch 
unit operations, performance tests shall be conducted during maximum 
representative operating conditions for the process achievable during 
one of the time periods described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section, without causing any of the situations described in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section to occur. * * *

0
37. Section 63.1438 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text and (e)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(v), (f)(3)(ii)(B), and the last sentence 
of paragraph (f)(4); and
0
c. Removing paragraph (g).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1438  Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Each excursion, as defined in paragraphs (f)(1)(i), 
(f)(2)(i)(A), (f)(2)(ii), (f)(3)(i), and (f)(4) of this section, 
constitutes a violation of the provisions of this subpart in accordance 
with paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Each excursion, as defined in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), 
(f)(1)(iii), (f)(2)(i)(B), and (f)(3)(ii) of this section constitutes a 
violation of the operating limit.
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies, are not considered to be part of the period of 
combustion, recovery, or recapture device operation, for the purposes 
of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Subtract the time during the periods of non-operation of the 
affected source (or portion thereof), resulting in cessation of the 
emissions to which the monitoring applies, from the total amount of 
time determined above in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, to 
obtain the operating time used to determine if monitoring data are 
insufficient.
* * * * *
    (4) * * * For each excursion, the owner or operator shall be deemed 
out of compliance with the provisions of this subpart, in accordance 
with paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *

0
38. Section 63.1439 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c);
0
b. Revising the first two sentences of paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
0
d. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
0
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
f. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(3) introductory text;
0
g. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(4) introductory text;
0
h. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(4)(i);
0
i. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(4)(ii);
0
j. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(v);
0
k. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(4)(vi);
0
l. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(vii)(B);
0
m. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(5) introductory text;
0
n. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(5)(vii);
0
o. Adding paragraph (e)(5)(viii);
0
p. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(6) introductory text;
0
q. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(D)(3), (e)(6)(iii)(E), 
(e)(6)(viii)(A)(1), and (e)(6)(viii)(D);
0
r. Adding paragraphs (e)(6)(ix) and (e)(9);
0
s. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(i);
0
t. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
u. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(iii); and
0
v. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) and (h)(2)(iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1439  General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Malfunction recordkeeping and reporting. (i) Records of 
malfunctions. The owner or operator shall keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable 
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the 
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (B) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and 
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, 
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (C) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  63.1420(h)(4), and any corrective actions taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (ii) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an 
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report 
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each 
instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure. For each 
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or 
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) Subpart H requirements. The owner or operator of an affected 
source shall comply with the HON equipment leak reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, except as 
specified in Sec.  63.1434(b) through (h).
    (d) Recordkeeping and documentation. The owner or operator required 
to keep continuous records shall keep records as specified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of this section, unless an alternative 
recordkeeping system has been requested and approved as specified in 
paragraph (g) of this section, and except as provided in paragraph (h) 
of this section. If a monitoring plan for storage vessels pursuant to 
Sec.  63.1432(i) requires continuous records, the monitoring plan shall 
specify which provisions, if any, of paragraphs (d)(1) through (10) of 
this section apply. * * *
    (7) Monitoring data recorded during periods identified in 
paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section shall not be included in 
any average computed under this subpart. Records shall be kept of the 
times and durations of all such periods and any other periods during 
process or combustion, recovery, or recapture device operation when 
monitors are not operating.
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies.
* * * * *
    (10) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, keep 
records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(10)(i) through 
(v) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
that the owner or

[[Page 17380]]

operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system and control device, 
subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1434(c)(4).
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1434(c)(1).
    (iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices 
equipped with rupture disks, subject to the provisions in Sec.  
63.1434(c)(2)(ii).
    (iv) The dates and results of the Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release for each pressure 
relief device subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1434(c)(1) and (2). 
The results shall include:
    (A) The background level measured during each compliance test.
    (B) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of 
equipment during each compliance test.
    (v) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
Sec.  63.1434(c)(3), keep records of each pressure release to the 
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (C) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release 
and the calculations used for determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (e) Reporting and notification. In addition to the reports and 
notifications required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in 
this subpart, the owner or operator of an affected source shall prepare 
and submit the reports listed in paragraphs (e)(3) through (9) of this 
section, as applicable. * * *
    (3) * * * The General Provisions' Initial Notification requirements 
in Sec.  63.9(b)(2) and (3) shall not apply for the purposes of this 
subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) Precompliance Report. The owner or operator of an affected 
source requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to 
use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous 
monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; or requesting 
approval to establish parameter monitoring levels according to the 
procedures contained in Sec.  63.1438(c) or (d) shall submit a 
Precompliance Report according to the schedule described in paragraph 
(e)(4)(i) of this section. * * *
    (i) * * * To submit a Precompliance Report for the first time after 
the compliance date to request an extension for compliance; request 
approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, alternative 
continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; or 
request approval to establish parameter monitoring levels according to 
the procedures contained in Sec.  63.1438(c) or (d), the owner or 
operator shall notify the Administrator at least 90 days before the 
planned change is to be implemented; the change shall be considered 
approved if the Administrator either approves the change in writing, or 
fails to disapprove the change in writing within 45 days of receipt.
    (ii) * * * The request for a compliance extension shall include the 
data outlined in the General Provisions' compliance requirements in 
Sec.  63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) and (B), as required in Sec.  63.1422(e)(1).
* * * * *
    (v) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use an 
alternative emission standard to comply with the provisions of this 
subpart in the Precompliance Report. The Administrator may deem an 
alternative emission standard to be equivalent to the standard required 
by the subpart, under the procedures outlined in the General 
Provisions' requirements for use of an alternative nonopacity emission 
standard, in Sec.  63.6(g).
* * * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (B) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to 
request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified 
in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section; to use alternative continuous 
monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of 
this section; or to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph 
(e)(4)(v) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) * * * For pressure relief devices subject to the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1434(c)(3), the owner or operator shall submit the 
information listed in paragraph (e)(5)(viii) of this section in the 
Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the first 
applicable compliance date for pressure relief device monitoring.
* * * * *
    (vii) * * * An owner or operator who transfers a Group 1 process 
vent for disposal pursuant to Sec.  63.113(i) shall include in the 
Notification of Compliance Status the name and location of the 
transferee, and the identification of the Group 1 process vent.
    (viii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a 
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented, 
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be 
monitored (if applicable), a description of the alarms or other methods 
by which operators will be notified of a pressure release, and a 
description of how the owner or operator will determine the information 
to be recorded under paragraphs (d)(10)(v)(B) and (C) of this section 
(i.e., the duration of the pressure release and the methodology and 
calculations for determining of the quantity of total HAP emitted 
during the pressure release).
    (6) Periodic Reports. For existing and new affected sources, the 
owner or operator shall submit Periodic Reports as specified in 
paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (ix) of this section. * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (3) For gas streams sent for disposal pursuant to Sec.  63.113(i) 
or for process wastewater streams sent for treatment pursuant to Sec.  
63.132(g), reports of changes in the identity of the treatment facility 
or transferee.
    (E) The information in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for 
reports of malfunctions.
* * * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) A combustion, recovery, or recapture device for a particular 
emission point or process section has one or more excursions, as 
defined in Sec.  63.1438(f), in two consecutive semiannual reporting 
periods; or
* * * * *
    (D) After quarterly reports have been submitted for an emission 
point for 1 year without one or more excursions occurring (during that 
year), the owner or operator may return to semiannual reporting for the 
emission point or process section.
    (ix) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, Periodic 
Reports must include the information specified in paragraphs 
(e)(6)(ix)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to 
Sec.  63.1434(c), report confirmation that all monitoring to show 
compliance was conducted within the reporting period.
    (B) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor service 
subject to Sec.  63.1434(c)(2), report any instrument reading of 500 
ppm above background or greater, more than 5 calendar days after the 
pressure release.
    (C) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to

[[Page 17381]]

Sec.  63.1434(c)(3), report each pressure release to the atmosphere, 
including the following information:
    (1) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (2) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (3) The quantity of total HAP emitted during the pressure release 
and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (4) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (5) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
* * * * *
    (9) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner 
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including 
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the 
methods specified in paragraphs (e)(9)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of 
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer 
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise 
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some 
of the information being submitted for performance tests is 
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file 
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI 
on a compact disk, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked 
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The 
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct 
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (ii) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are 
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator 
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator 
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or 
impossible data during periods of operation (e.g., a temperature 
reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler), and will alert the operator by 
alarm or other means. * * *
    (ii) The monitoring system generates, updated at least hourly 
throughout each operating day, a running average of the monitoring 
values that have been obtained during that operating day, and the 
capability to observe this running average is readily available to the 
Administrator on-site during the operating day. The owner or operator 
shall record the occurrence of any period meeting the criteria in 
paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. All instances in an 
operating day constitute a single occurrence.
    (A) The running average is above the maximum or below the minimum 
established limits; and
    (B) The running average is based on at least six 1-hour average 
values.
    (iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data 
during periods of operation, except in circumstances where the presence 
of unchanging data are the expected operating condition based on past 
experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), and will alert the operator by 
alarm or other means. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The owner or operator shall retain the records specified in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section, for the duration specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section. For any calendar week, if compliance 
with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not result 
in retention of a record of at least one occurrence or measured 
parameter value, the owner or operator shall record and retain at least 
one parameter value during a period of operation.
    (iv) For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, an 
excursion means that the daily average of monitoring data for a 
parameter is greater than the maximum, or less than the minimum 
established value.

0
39. Table 1 to Subpart PPP of Part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(6)-(8) and 63.1(a)(9);
0
b. Adding entries 63.1(a)(6) and 63.1(a)(7)-(9);
0
c. Revising entries 63.1(c)(4), 63.6(e), 63.6(e)(1)(i), and 
63.6(e)(1)(ii);
0
d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i), 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), 63.6(e)(3)(i)(B), 
63.6(e)(3)(i)(C), 63.6(e)(3)(ii), 63.6(e)(3)(iii), 63.6(e)(3)(iv), 
63.6(e)(3)(v), 63.6(e)(3)(vi), 63.6(e)(3)(vii), 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(A), 
63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B), 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(C), 63.6(e)(3)(viii), and 
63.6(e)(3)(ix);
0
f. Revising entries 63.6(f)(1), 63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 
63.8(c)(1)(ii), and 63.8(c)(1)(iii);
0
g. Adding entry 63.10(d)(5);
0
h. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 63.10(d)(5)(ii); and
0
i. Removing footnote (a).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

 Table 1 of Subpart PPP of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
                     to Subpart PPP Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               subpart PPP          Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(a)(6)....................  Yes..............  .....................
63.1(a)(7)-(9)................  No...............  Reserved.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.1(c)(4)....................  No...............  Reserved.
 
                              * * * * * * *
63.6(e).......................  Yes..............  Except as otherwise
                                                    specified for
                                                    individual
                                                    paragraphs.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1420(h)(4) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  No...............  .....................
 

[[Page 17382]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1437(a).
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  No...............  .....................
 
                              * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No...............  See Sec.
                                                    63.1439(b)(1)(ii)
                                                    for malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
40. Table 2 to Subpart PPP of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the title;
0
b. Adding entries 63.107 and 63.153; and
0
c. Revising entry 63.160-63.182.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

       Table 2 of Subpart PPP of Part 63--Applicability of HON Provisions to Subpart PPP Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Applicable
               Reference                  Applies to subpart PPP            Explanation             section of
                                                                                                    subpart PPP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart F:
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
    63.107............................  No.......................  .............................  ..............
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Subpart G:
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
    63.153............................  No.......................  .............................         63.1421
Subpart H:
    63.160-63.182.....................  Yes......................  Subpart PPP affected sources          63.1434
                                                                    shall comply with all
                                                                    requirements of subpart H,
                                                                    with the differences noted
                                                                    in 63.1422(d), 63.1422(h),
                                                                    and 63.1434.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
41. Table 7 to Subpart PPP of part 63 is amended by revising the title 
to read as follows:

Table 7 of Subpart PPP of Part 63--Operating Parameters for Which 
Monitoring Levels Are Required To Be Established for Process Vent 
Streams
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04305 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```